No that’s really just stating a potential fact. We could be in a situation where we did not possess an explanation for how “chance/necessity” could give us a moral sense.
Not knowing how a tune can be green is not a matter of ignorance, but of coherence.
Sure, but you’re playing rather fast and loose with language here. It is not at all obvious that tune and color are analogous to chance/necessity and moral sense.
There is simply no conceivable step from “is” to “ought,” and saying “there may be one day” is just wishful thinking.
I’m not saying there is such a step. In fact I’d agree there is none. But it’s not a problem theism solves.
You are again playing it very loose with language. I have said I think there is an explanation for us having a moral sense. And by that I mean us having moral opinions. You seem to take that to mean I must explain how we get to moral OUGHTS from some IS. But a moral sense, or having moral opinions, is not the same as showing that we objectively OUGHT to follow those moral senses or opinions. I haven’t claimed that, and I don’t think anyone or anything can get us there. Including theism.
And by primary you just mean assumed. It’s an axiom, or presuppostion we make. I agree. Neither of us can show they’re objective.
That’s the whole point - choice is anterior to what we call chance and necessity.
I don’t understand what you mean by “anterior”, what does that mean? And why are you suddenly introducing the concept of choice?
In fact, it renders both of them poor descriptions of reality: necessity is merely regular divine choice
and chance is always epistemological, that is, contingent divine choices we cannot predict.
I’m sorry but you have stopped making any sense. We can’t have this conversation when you have a personal vocabulary.
Neither of those are normal uses of the words chance or necessity, in science or philosophy. No wonder you think “chance/necessity” can’t explain why we have a “moral sense”, you have really odd and unstated definitions or chance, necessity, and moral sense. And you’re constantly introducing new concepts and ideas that only make your claims and arguments more difficult to comprehend.
Since it’s now clear you’ve used alien definitions of everything we’ve been talking about, I dont’ see how we can proceed.
In this way, the wisdom and justice of “primary mind” (in this conversation the divine mind) is quite capable of explaining the phenomena of chance and necessity rationally.
So you say, but what the hell is the “wisdom and justice of primary mind”? What is primary mind? Why posit that? How do you get oughts from it? Can you produce an argument that concludes with oughts without assuming them? If not, then isn’t your demand that I do so hypocritical? How can you then claim to be in any sort of superior position to mine if you have to do the same thing I do, begin by assuming the oughts?
Whereas to explain mind
Now we have to explain mind too? Okay, let’s hear yours then. Start by defining what mind is, it’s essential attributes and nature. Then explain it’s workings and existence.
starting with chance and necessity ends up, as you do, merely asserting that there is an explanation of the incoherent in some future discovery.
No, because I haven’t claimed to have explained mind. I have claimed that chance/necessity can explain how minds come to have a moral sense. Aka moral opinions.