I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

Evidence is the wrong word. But I have provided the reasons why it cannot be so. Simply put, because there will be no (objective) mind which transcends the subjectivity of subjective minds (human minds).

If you, or I - or anyone else for that matter - can't think of another way, that doesn't mean you've shown that objective morality can't exist without God. You still lack evidence for that. It's a mere assumption.

Besides, I personally see it as totally and utterly pointless untill there's any evidence of a God.

It, exactly, does not have to be objective. Unless you want to make moral judgements, which presuppose an objective standard which applies to everyone and which therefore you can make valid judgements about others.

So it doesn't have to be objective...unless you want to make valid judgements? But there's no evdience for objective morality so validity itself is subjective!

However, what you have completely ignored is that this is only the part about moral truth being founded in an objective foundation in the epistemic structure of Christianity.

I don't see how Christianity has anything to offer on the matter. Or how on earth you've shown that? What's special about it? There are plenty of philosophies out there, and there's Christianity. They all come with values, etc. And there's no evidence that any of these values are objective ones, with or without Christianity.

So I'm missing something there then? Please clarify!

So you cannot make logical judgements or moral judgements in an atheistic epistemic structure. You can so in a Christian epistemic structure.

Show me the evidence for objective morality. Then show me that Christainity has a hold on it. Then you may say that Christainity has any more bearing whatsoever over what's moral than anyone else does, atheist or otherwise.

The "evidence" is the only word you know.

Incorrect. See?

But this argument is not about evidence, because it is not an evidential argument.

Untill there's any evidence for objective morality. I don't see what we are discussing that has any substance or point to it? Who cares about there being no objective morality without God if there's no evidence for gode or objective morality? So what - I live with that. I deal with it because there's no evidence for either. So for me at least - I think it is an evidential matter, otherwise the matter is just gratuitious. It's just like - You: "Without God there is no objective morality!" Me: "So? Who cares because neither exist!"

It's an agnostic argument. If you start bringing evidence into it, it's no longer an agnostic argument, and then it becomes incompetent in analysing worldviews, which is it's only function.

Evidence is an agnostic matter. Absolute proof is gnostic. And I know of no evidence for that, but that doesn't mean I absolutely believe that there's no absolute proof for anything, because the absence of such evidence is an agnostic matter not a gnostic one. And what there is evidence of, like evolution for example - I'm not gnostic about. I'm agnostic about it, because the evidence is not absolute proof, otherwise it wouldn't be evidence it would be absolute proof, which would be gnostic. The evidence just gives a very strong indication. A strong certainty, but not absolute - it's agnostic!

EvF