I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

You write god with capital 'G', known to be the name of the christian god. For this you give no reason.

In that particular post, no, because then I will be repeating the same things in every post where I even mention God. I prefer the way I did it, which was to start with giving some of my foundations for my worldview, and then presuppose that as part of the debate. I already explained why I believe in the God of Christianity, that is, a transcendental and one God who created the universe and everything in it. I defined God as "pure actuality", which is the only concept necessary to know to understand God logically.

Why cannot Hindu be the noncontingent actuality that embodies absolute morality?

What do you mean "Hindu"? That simply makes no sense. If what you are asking is "Can the Hindu god or gods be the noncontingent actuality that embodies absolute morality?", then you should not ask me, but a Hindu, since the question depends entirely on whether that Hindu god even is held to be noncontingent and pure actuality. Since that is (as far as I know) not the case, Hinduism is simply irrelevant.

The question you are asking is though, how we know what absolute morality the noncontingent God I am speaking of does embody, and why we can't just choose an arbitrary belief as to what that is.

There are several answers to this. One is, of course, the only relevant one to what I was originally speaking about. Which was that without an absolute/objective morality as properly basic to your epistemic structure, there is no way to make moral judgements on others behalf, or in other words, there is no transcendental morality to begin with. That is simply an analysis of a Christian versus a non-Christian worldview, or more specifically, atheist or non-monotheist. However, what you are getting into is something completely different, as always in these kinds of debates.

If we want to get into how we can know which morality is embodied by Gods transcendent being, the short and logical answer is really that of Godlikeness. Since God is the creator of everything, including nature as we know it, and maintains us in existence as free charity, our goal is really just to accept that, by acting in accord to his will. It's only a short preamble to the many conclusions that follow. It's a matter of seeing the absolute end, both by direct and more apophatic means, that is, as it reflects in nature. Which is where the precepts of natural law come in, and the reflection of the morality embodied in God by recognising his will as it manifests in nature. By this, what we can do is really to follow Gods end which also means following Gods being.

But of course, that entirely entails that God exists to begin with on the grounds I have given. If not, there is no objective reason to follow any will except your own.

In this sense, man in his natural state did not need revelation to do something good; nor is revelation necessary to know basic moral directives, or rather, the ends manifest in nature.

What revelation is necessary for, or let's rather say, why revelation is even relevant, is due to the nature of man. Man is, even if we don't want to admit it, the highest natural being, one of the very ends of anything. Man is the very natural being who can say: I am here. And we are. The point is really that man is like God more than anything else God has created: man has mind and intellect, man has knowledge, man has great power, man can kill himself or make himself something nearer to immortal than a mere beast can make itself, man has moral understanding as a result of his natural intellect, and therefore has the abillity to receive on a higher plane than anything in existence, understanding and relationship to God - by being more like God. Man can thus have conscious, intellectual and knowing sympathy and communication with God, in a sense that no beast has the faculties to do so.

How we can know when God has revealed himself and when he has not? We can know it by the already existing ends and facts of human nature and nature of reality in general - and the consonance between the proposed revelation and the truth we can naturally and indirectly know of what God has to be like. And since we can establish what God has to be like by the means he himself has provided, aside from any revelation, this means we can evaluate revelations with a firm starting ground. This means that for instance, Hinduism is excluded as a possibility. But the more important fact is that we are basically open to God by recognising his existence, and thus we are also open to personal revelation - which is possible if God exists - since with God, all things are possible, but there would be no reason for the God we can know aside from his revelations to reveal himself personally to some being that he maintains in existence who has no and desires no and blocks every connection to God.

With enough logically necessary criteria and enough natural reason applied, we as Christians can thus be justified in our evaluations as to Gods revelation - as to what is, and what is not, as to what can be, and what cannot, based on the moral content and its consonance or nonconsonance to Gods being as it is attested aside from revelation, and through the openness which opens the door to personal guidances. But the discussion, down into details, is much longer and I can only very simplistically lay out some basics here as I've done.