Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Inkfeather132]

Alright then, now we have that god will not tell us to do something immoral, correct?
My next question then is, will he ever change his morality? For instance, will he command people to do something (thereby making it moral) and then later command them to do the opposite (thereby making the opposite moral and the original immoral)?

And I thought of another one, if god does something and gives his reason for doing it, can I do the same thing if I have the same reason he did?

God could not tell us to do something immoral. Since his nature can't change, every command will be moral at the time of the command or for the intended duration of the command. 

You do not have the same rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, and perfect moral clarity that God does, so...No.

---

For the duration? No, it has to be moral forever after the command otherwise there is a change. Once god commands something, it IS moral. Unless he can change his morality?

So there is a double standard going on. God can do it because he is god, and I can't do it because I'm not god.

Objective morality means that something being right or wrong is a natural fact. Rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, perfect moral clarity and especially feelings have no bearing on objectivity so leave them out of this. If something is objectively right, then it is right no matter who does it. Same for wrong. So if god always does what is objectively right, then I can do whatever he does knowing that it is objectively right. So the question is: Does god always do what is objectively right?

---

Alright then, now we have that god will not tell us to do something immoral, correct?
My next question then is, will he ever change his morality? For instance, will he command people to do something (thereby making it moral) and then later command them to do the opposite (thereby making the opposite moral and the original immoral)?

And I thought of another one, if god does something and gives his reason for doing it, can I do the same thing if I have the same reason he did?

Note all the assertions in Steves argument if only he could answer in a way that does not collapse back into the dilemma .

What rights? What grants him those rights? why should anyone care about his rights ?

Same goes for authority

Having a responsibility does make it moral

Having knowledge does not make the one moral  

perfect moral clarity begs the question and even having clarity does not make one moral

And none of this matters because it's arbitrarily assigned

It's kind of the same question as "Who made god then?". You're absolutely right, it is all arbitrary. The whole argument seems to be that God is moral because God says he is moral. Which is the definition of subjective morality.