If there really are competing moral values with no clear ultimate deciding framework - how then can any ethical choice be justified without resorting to some sort of relativism?
If theism is a position which can be derived through the tools of analytic philosophy and little/nothing else, why aren't there more irreligious theists (i.e., philosophers and other thinkers who take on a theistic position while not belonging to any particular religious tradition)?
I know that such individuals exist(ed) - for instance, Yujin Nagasawa or enlightenment-era deists - but most philosophers who defend theism in contemporary western analytic philosophy are Christian (e.g., Swinburne, Plantinga, Rasmussen, ...)
And to make it very clear - I am referring here to the traditional theistic position that there is a necessary, perfect grounding upon which all of the natural world rests (as opposed to something like pantheism, polytheism, ...)