Objective Morality?

[lucent]

Absolute morality is morality that is static and unchanging, based on absolute values of right and wrong. Therefore, it is not subject to change due to human opinion. It does not change because God does not change. Therefore, absolute morality is impossible without God.

Absolute morality requires unchanging values for good and evil
Human opinions on these values change all the time
Therefore absolute morality is impossible for human beings

Therefore, humans are left with subjective morality, or morality by concensus. Since right and wrong are values subject to change by human opinion, what is moral is determined by the largest agreement on those values. Under this model, anything good at one time may become evil at another time, and vice versa, due to changing opinions on the values of right and wrong.

Therefore, under subjective morality, the holocaust could be declared morally right. If enough people agreed that the holocaust was good, it would be morally justified.

Therefore, since subjective morality could justify the holocaust it must be discarded as system of morality. The reason it must be discarded is because we know the holocaust is absolutely wrong. We know the holocaust is absolutely wrong because we all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. Since we know the holocaust is absolutely wrong, we know morality is absolute and not subjective. Since morality is absolute, and absolute morality is impossible without God, God exists.

The TAG argument for the Christian god is a fascinatingly fallacious argument, as it combines three spurious assumptions into a triple act of begging the question all in three short steps. Very efficient.

TAG Argument steps:

1. Without God, there can be no objective morality (assumption)
2. Objective morality exists (assumption)
3. Therefore, God exists (who must be the Christian god) (unstated assumption)

The assumption I want to focus on in this thread is the one about "objective morality". I'd like to ask anyone who believes it exists to explain to me what it is.

First, let's define the word objective (from dictionary.com)

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8.of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

My interpretation, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that things which are objective can be studied and measured in a science experiment whereas subjective matters are weighed out in philosophy discussions. Science is the study of the objective universe where philosophy is the debate of subjective matters.

If I have this right, then objective morals should be something we can scientifically study and measure. Just like we have units of measure for temperature, velocity and mass, we should be able to come up with units of measure for moral goodness. We could plug numbers into a spreadsheet and determine the best moral course of action in each case.

If this sounds silly, you understand why I'm skeptical of claims that "objective morals exist". Perhaps someone could explain it to me a little better?

At this point, I'd also like to mention that I believe that "subjective morality" =/= amorality, as often asserted by theists. Just because we acknowledge that moral questions are complex issues that involve empathy, judgment and conscience doesn't mean "anything goes". We can and do judge "honor killings" and other abuses by religion and still debate right and wrong. Just because we can't plug it into a spreadsheet doesn't mean it can't be rationally discussed.