The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

---

So, it's racial discrimination is okay under some circumstances, places and times? It's not always wrong to treat people differently because of the color of their skin?

I've already responded to and defeated this argument several times in the last post I made that you failed to reply to. You have a flawed understanding of subjective morality. 

Subjective is not what we perceive to be moral always and everywhere. Subjective is what is decided through feelings and opinions. And everything that man has ever declared immoral has been decided by his own perception of what is right and wrong. Thus, everything moral is subjective. 

I ask you again, what makes murder wrong?

Objective Moral Values are those that would still exist even if every single human being living on the planet were to be killed by a virus.

Murder would still be wrong. Racial discrimination would still be wrong. Even if there were no humans around to commit those acts.

Euthyphro's Dilemma again. Answered previously. In brief, theists argue that God does not "decide" what is good; God IS good, and all things are measured against that absolute standard.

Alright. How? You're walking around the dilemma not by approaching it directly, but by changing your word choice.

How do you decide what is good? You cannot communicate with god directly. 
And furthermore, how do you know that God is good?
And furthermore, explain to me the science behind something being factually good?
Good is subjective. Something can be perceived to be good or bad, depending on the individual, but it cannot exist as being good as fact.  

Well, you're asking me to respond on behalf of theism, so okay...here's what I think a believer might say in response to your questions:

Theists would say that they CAN communicate with God directly. Further, they would say that He has initiated this contact (Judaism, Islam, etc.). Christians would say that God chose to become a man in order to communicate even more directly (though this was not the main reason). Above all, Christians hold that we all have an understanding of right and wrong that is hardwired into our makeup, so even people who have never heard of God still understand some truths about right and wrong.

God is good by definition. Evil is merely the absence of Good and not a thing in and of itself. God must be Good and cannot be bad.

Does science make determinations about "good" and "evil", between "right" and "wrong"?

Finally, the God of theism simply IS good, and all other things are determined to be good or bad depending upon how closely they correspond to his nature.

---

No. Because that is not the argument.

If OBJECTIVE moral values exist, then there must be an independent standard from which these values are derived or against which they are evaluated.

Otherwise, our moral values are merely the result of personal preferences or social conventions.

This breaks down with the simple argument of 'why?'

No, the argument does not break down by asking a simple question.

Without an independent standard, then you and I are simply left with our own personal preferences of what is right and wrong. We may agree (social convention), but we may not.

---

Still trying to manufacture an objective morality out of agreement, Athrock?

Still trying to get people to think rather than simply accepting the silly notion that mere social convention is the basis for morality.

So, yeah.