(May 15, 2017 at 7:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(May 15, 2017 at 6:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Ok, let me approach this from another tack. What does "objective" mean in the context you're using here.
My understanding is that it means "independent of opinion, reason, or mind". I suppose if you assert that your law giver has none of those qualities it works, however, I don't think a mindless automation is what theists have in mind.
Put more plainly, if the law is a product of a law giver's thought process, it is necessarily and tautologically subjective.
The difference between my opinion and God's "opinion" is that He's the one who created the world we live in and all of its Laws and how it works. We call it Natural Law. It's like me creating my own board game and designing how the game works and the rules that go with it. The rules of the game are integral to the way the entire game was designed to work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
Assuming for the moment the truth of what you're saying,inn what way does that make it *objective* (that is, existing independently of opinion, reason, or mind)? You're describing something else I think.
Are those God's rules moral because God commands it, or does god command it because it's moral? This isn't a question that gets sidestepped so easily by asserting that a hypothetical creator gets to make the rules - that may be true or not, but it doesn't describe objectivity.
