Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[Esquilax]

Just as we have the capacity to perceive objective beauty, love, logic, etc., we have the capacity to perceive objective right and wrong. The default position is to trust our perceptions until proven otherwise.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must not have been clear to you: I was asking for evidence, not a repeat of the same fiat assertion you made a post before.

Also? If you actually think what you just said counts as evidence, there's the little problem of slipping your conclusion into one of the premises you think demonstrates it, so even your idea of evidence is begging the question.

Is it more probably that objective beauty exists or not?

Objective beauty doesn't exist. Our perceptions of beauty vary wildly, and we find its origin in our evolution, specifically those things we've been programmed to find visually appealing as a survival mechanism. It's no coincidence, off the top of my head, that the traits we find visually appealing in animals- big eyes, symmetry, soft hair- are reminiscent of traits found in human infants, whereas traits we find undesirable- bared teeth, boniness- are hallmarks of aggression in predators.

Is it more probably that objective love exists or not?

Love is an emotion derived from conscious experience. By its very nature it is subjective to the person experiencing it.

Is it more probably that logic exists or not?

Logic exists as observations based on consistent patterns and conformation to reality. Not as some external force.

Is it more probably that objective right and wrong exists or not?

The frame through which we derive moral right and wrong exists objectively, but it's not the source you think it is.