Are you religious?

[geoff332]

Again presumably you're fully aware that whether an argument is condescending or not has nothing to do with whether it's valid.

I seem to recall you saying that perhaps some things transcend logic. To now appeal to logic is - dare I say it - illogical. That's the condescending part.

1. You cannot know the unknowable.
2. If God exists and is unknowable you cannot know God.

Hardly logically flawed.

That's not the illogical position I was referring to.

The illogical position I was referring to was the statement that we cannot know whether something is moral or not then claiming that we had moral agency. Once again, that little piece of contradiction has not been answered. You addressed every point I made except the question I really asked.

You submit that I am implying something and then refuse to allow me to clarify my position.

You're more than welcome to clarify it. But instead you're restating it, without actually addressing the question I've asked. Hardly clarification.

So, I ask again. You say there is no way of knowing if an action is moral or not, yet you also claim we have moral agency. How can that be possible?