(February 27, 2017 at 12:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote:Right. What Steve is arguing for is not moral objectivity, but theological relativism. It's odd because it doesn't seem that his God is really capable of adding anything to our concept of "Goodness." Goodness is a property that is intrinsic to certain objects or facts... or it is not. God cannot "make" anything good unless it is already assumed that God or his actions are intrinsically good... which is the very point that God is supposed to be necessary to explain. It is nothing but circularity.(February 27, 2017 at 10:33 am)SteveII Wrote: The meaning of subjective/objective is based on a reference point. If we make up our own purpose/value/meaning, it is subjective. If God created us, then to us, our purpose/value/meaning is objective, while from his reference point, it is subjective.-as his from ours is subjective. Something doesn't become objective "because goddidit" - that's not even remotely what that word means, even if that's -all- you're using it as a stand in for....which is pretty clear at this point.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza