Apologetics open challenge

[robvalue]

I don't particularly understand what this is saying, but you seem to just announce "objective morality exists" halfway through.

I don't know what objective morality is supposed to be, in what way it "exists", or why it requires anything to perceive it. You seem to be saying objectively morality is like some law of the universe like gravity.

That's ok if you don't know what objective morality is. I believe it God's Name/face/light in creation and it's absolute existence is God himself. But I'm not assuming these things to be true for the argument or else it would be circular.

Like I said before, if you believe one subjective view of a certain moral issue is superior to another morally and ethically, then you believe in objective morality. No if you believe there is any goodness in any action that is real and genuine, you believe in objective morality. 

Objective morality doesn't have to mean "the most perfect act to do in a moment", just that in a moment, an action is truly good given the intention and perception of the individual.

"This perception" and "hearing" is that of a genuine true force, a true power, in the soul, that is from the light of God.

I don't understand paragraph 4 at all. You're trying to justify why there must be someone to perceive objective morality by referring to souls and God, which have not been established.

In paragraph 3, it seems you are saying that if someone intends to do good, then they have acted morally, from their point of view. I would agree that this is the starting point of defining morality in the first place. Is that what you are saying? So that means that different people doing exactly the same action may be considered moral or immoral, even by the same independent third party. Hence not objective to the action itself. What people perceive as "good", and what is "actually good", if such a thing makes any sense at all (I don't believe it does) are not the same thing. You're just describing what I would call subjective morality. It depends on the person, it depends on intent, it depends on their knowledge and perception. None of this is objective.

So I would conclude that you believe in what I would call subjective morality, but you call it objective morality. If this is the case, it's absolutely fine. You can call things whatever you want.