My views on objective morality

[Mystic]

 I have to agree with this. In the sense, every argument, makes use of some premises that can be disputed. And even those premises have arguments, they will have premises that can be disputed.  

The thing is I believe in the Ultimate Value thread, I showed a clear reminder. 

At the end, all we can do is remind of signs of God or his light or our link to him. Arguments all make use of at least something linked to him.

The link can always be denied. People can deny their own selves as well. Their perpetual identity. The link of their actions to who they and their value. 

They can deny so many things at the end of it all. I've even seen some people say yes things can come out of nothing, that is existence can appear out of non-existence. 

We saw LadyCamus deny that in all possible worlds it has to be the case that it's impossible that it can be good for the Creator to torture an innocent being forever for no reason, no crime. We had no Atheist in that thread I discussed with her support this premise.

Since you called me out (which is fine) can you explain this better?  I'm not quite what you are saying that I denied.  Thanks.  

Possible worlds is referred to as what is logically possible. Somethings are impossible in all possible worlds. Somethings are necessarily true in all possible worlds. They are such that no possible world exists but that they would be true.

Do you remember you agreed on the premise:

If a Creator can create goodness without it already existing, it can decide what it is.
If it can decide what it is, it can decide it would be good and right to torture a being forever intensely for no crime on it's own.

You agreed on these two premises.

You disputed at first, the premise "If the creator cannot create goodness without it already existing, then neither can evolution or anything for that matter" but when it was pointed out to you the Creator can create evolution or whatever things evolution creates, you withdrew this.

The premise that you disputed then was "It's necessarily the case in all worlds, it cannot be good torture a being forever and ever for no crime that it has done"

You said this is not true because morality is relative or subjective (can't remember which of these two you said).

But the reason why you denied it, is because the argument then goes on to say:

Therefore morality (as neither evolution or Creator can create it without already existing) is eternal.
Morality requires perception.
Therefore eternal perception of morality always existed.

You knew the conclusion followed. So you had to deny one premise. So you denied the one I just stated.

What it just means it's impossible that it is good to torture a being for no crime on it's own forever and ever.

So this shows it's impossible that a hypothetical creator creates it out of nothing because we agreed that would make it possible for it to be good to torture a being for no crime on it's own forever and ever.

Anyways....no one refuted the argument. It was not only valid, but it's sound. All the premises are true.