Hamza Tzortzis

[leo-rcc]

There has to be a boss since there are 2 or more contradicting definition of on certain moral.

How does that make the case for a "boss" to exist any more plausible? One can be wrong and one can be right, and still there is no need for a third party lawgiver. It is superfluous.

Take for instance like abortion

If you think it is right then there are also others who think it not wrong.

Then who is right then?

That is what we can decide through dialog. Honest discussion can get you the same or even a better result as using some outside party, specially if that outside party has given no indication to be real, let alone a legitimate source of morality to begin with.

The Bos will decide, and He is the supreme creator. Only such an entity could standardise the moral standard.

That is just another assertion, with no foundation in evidence or reason. You need to come up with a better explanation than "there has to be because I don't see how else a moral standard can be applied". That is just an argument from ignorance, and will convince no-one.