Just to clarify what the theists in this thread are suggesting: morality cannot be objective unless we imagine a God who, for some nations at some epochs, endorses the beating of slaves and stoning of fornicators, but at other times does not. In other words, their source for what they want to call objective morality is actually depressingly relative; depressing because it appears to trick some minds into defending barbarism as very good.
Well, to hell with that. The very notion that God cannot lie suggests that God as he exists in his actions can be abstracted from the nature of the Good, i.e. the standard, which you unjustifiably assert as being synonymous with his "nature" - a standard (or nature), by the way, which he apparently lacks the free will to oppose.
Objective morality doesn't require God as a source. It requires inquiring minds who experience different states of being in their struggle to attain what every person desires: happiness.
Well, to hell with that. The very notion that God cannot lie suggests that God as he exists in his actions can be abstracted from the nature of the Good, i.e. the standard, which you unjustifiably assert as being synonymous with his "nature" - a standard (or nature), by the way, which he apparently lacks the free will to oppose.
Objective morality doesn't require God as a source. It requires inquiring minds who experience different states of being in their struggle to attain what every person desires: happiness.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
