The Struggle to do Good

[brokenreflector]

The good and the bad based on the nature of a given subject, god.  

We've been through this several times already. I've tried teaching you what objective (and subjective) means, but you're unwilling or unable to learn. I don't know if you have a mental deficiency or if you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Regardless, a thing is objective if it's existence is independent of any subject's perception. God's moral nature is independent of any subject's perception. Therefore, God's moral nature is objective.

I'm a moral realist.

Unjustifiably.

I think that moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right

Who or what told you that "harming human beings is evil" is a fact?

There's no need to add "objectively" in front of a realist statement.

There is if the discussion is about whether or not objective moral values and duties exist.

Yes, I think that it's bad to harm.

What or who is your source?

It can be objectively true that vanilla is my favorite flavor of icecream, which is subjective. 

True, but that's not what you wrote. You wrote that if X is told to you by a person, then that makes it subjective. That's false. 

But I'm glad you're starting to clear up some of your thinking. At least something positive has come out of this discussion.

I think that human beings are moral agents capable of observing relevant facts.

That's great.

So when are you going to share with us your source of objective moral values and duties? Because so far all you've done is say that you've observed some things; therefore, some things are evil. That's just a non-sequitur and does nothing to show that there are objective moral values and duties.