Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

You see, this is what is wrong with people like you... You don't think an act is wrong if you feel that it is, you let someone else decide.

Why exactly is letting someone else who is infallible decide over myself who is fallible what is wrong? So when Jeffery Dahmer decided it was not morally wrong to murder and devour his victims he had respect in your eyes than I do because he decided it for himself?

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Sounds like an infallible God’s commands to me.

"unbiased, not influenced by opinions, independent of thought" all preclude the answer coming exclusively from the evaluations, mandates and opinions of a single being, however wise or powerful that being may be. If morality is truly objective, it exists as part of reality which can be potentially discovered by any observer. Things objectively wrong would continue to be wrong regardless of whether Yahweh goes away to another universe, changes his mind or turns out never to have existed at all.

Nope, you are switching your definitions around either on purpose or because of ignorance. God’s decrees would only be subjective to Himself, but since they are apart from mankind, discernable by mankind, applicable to all mankind, and not whimsical, they are objectively true to mankind.

If you say "morality is objective and this singular being decides what that is" you have by the definition of 'objective' contradicted yourself. Objective is not a matter of decision by any being.

Again, you either didn’t read the definition or you are trying to be sneaky. Morality applies to mankind, it is decided by a perfect being outside of mankind who owns all of mankind; therefore it is objective from man’s perspective. Therefore, objective morality does exist because of God’s decrees.

1. belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered.

See, its right there. Mankind is the subject, morality the object is not a result of man’s mind but rather the mind of God which is outside of the subject. It’s not subjective from man’s perspective at all.

Subjective evaluations are decided upon

God’s moral decrees are not decided upon by man.

Objective facts are discovered

God’s moral decrees are discovered by man through God’s revelation.

Clear?

Yes you helped clearly proof my point, thanks.

Let's suppose I never change my mind about how apples taste or that everyone agrees that throwing apples at people is a bad thing to do. These evaluations do not become less subjective merely by the introduction of the possibility or unlikelyhood of change. Neither do they become more subjective if change is considered likely.

Improper analogy, your analogy is only subjective because you are deciding the moral law for yourself, if God decided it for you it would cease to be subjective and become objective from your perspective.

This is your assertion. Defining Yahweh as "good" and then saying "goodness is based on Yahweh" is offering a bare assertion followed to a pre-determined conclusion.

Nope, it’s defining a term the way scripture defines it. If you claim that Yahweh is not good and then proceed to define goodness differently than Yahweh does you are committing equivocation.

The circularity of such logic is dizzying. "Goodness is what Yahweh wills, so we know that Yahweh is good because Yahweh wills what Yahweh wills and so we know that what Yahweh wills is good because Yahweh is good and a good god who is composed only of goodness would only will good things so we know that what Yahweh wills is good and so we can define that goodness is what Yahweh wills..."

Pretty lame straw man really. Yahweh is good because He is the very standard we measure goodness by, goodness is one of His attributes. “That meter stick can’t be a meter because to say it is a meter is being circular!” “No, it’s a meter because it is the actual standard we use to measure what a meter is” No circularity needed.

Also, your assertion isn't true by definition of the terms "objective" and "subjective". Objective matters are not decided on but discovered.

Well we already talked about how man does not decide morality but rather discovers it through God’s revelation, so we resolved that issue already.

This is completely beside the point. We are discussing whether or not Christian morality is objective. Additionally, this is incorrect. Yahweh's morality does in fact change, as demonstrated by the NT replacing the OT. Time was shellfish were an abomination. Now they are not.

It is objective from the perspective of the Christian. Jewish purity laws changed, but the concepts of morality that are based upon parts of God’s character do not change.

In the translation I offered, it did.

Well you cherry picked translations then to get what you wanted which is something I have seen you do more than once; I have always stuck to the ESV.

Additionally, since the commandment addresses coveting the PROPERTY of another person, that suggests slavery rather than willing and employed servant.

I never saw the word property in the verse, more so a person should not covet the life their neighbor has.

According to the slave and any who don't wish to be slaves, which would be pretty much everyone else in the world.

So morality is decided by majority opinion?

Actually, I've been consistent in my explanations of why slavery would be wrong but you're still struggling with more basic concepts like what distinguishes "objective" from "subjective" so I'm trying to go slow with you.

Actually I corrected you on subjectivity vs. objectivity; you are welcome by the way. Also, according to your very own appeal to majority rule you made above, back when the majority of people felt slavery was not morally wrong it would not have been…according to you that is of course.

My wife thinks I'm wasting a lot of time trying to explain basic things to a total fucktard and my time would be better spent watching gay porn with her.
This is her subjective evaluation.

If your wife wants to join the conversation and get run through just like you always do he is more than welcome to do so.