The Struggle to do Good

[brokenreflector]

Correct.  Including a gods.

And God's moral nature is independent of any subject's perception, making it objective.

Yes, I would hope that a gods moral nature could be objective.  We manage to pull it off.

So far you haven't provided any ontological basis for your moral values that'd make them objective.

If moral statements referred to whether or not someone told me something, they would be subjectivist.

False. We've been over this before.

Is it?  You'd think that two moral realists wouldn't need to hash that out between them.

My belief in objective moral values and duties is justified. Yours isn't

....as ever, with realism, relevant facts of a matter x.

You do realize that this is incoherent, right?

It doesn't follow that because X will in fact harm Y that therefore it is evil for X to harm Y. Are you really that stupid that you don't understand this?

A person either does or doesn't believe that human beings are capable of identifying facts of a matter x.

But how are you deriving moral values and duties from propositions? Like I wrote previously, you're either extremely stupid and out of your depth or you're a very dishonest person.

There's nothing in the proposition "hitting a person will harm them" that tells us it's evil to hit people or that we ought to not hit people. You seem to think it's objectively evil to randomly hit people. That's great. But you still haven't provided any basis for this belief. You just keep repeating the incoherent message, "human beings are capable of identifying facts of a matter x." But doesn't answer the question at all. If you really can't see that, then you're a dumb person and I'm sorry. But you shouldn't be having these kinds of discussions with such a low IQ.

This will probably be my last post to you. I really think you may be a retard who somehow got the idea in their head that they know what they're talking about.