Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Angrboda]

You can assert all day his nature is necessarily good .You have not established it necessity. And you have yet to argue why it should be accepted as good. Aside you proclaiming  that it's good . So on and  on the baseless proclamations go.

Agreed Jorm or as Michael Martin puts it

In any case, appealing to God's character only postpones the problem since the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of His character. Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character? Is there an independent standard of good or does God's character set the standard? If God's character is the way it is because it is good, then there is an independent standard of goodness by which to evaluate God's character. For example, suppose God condemns rape because of His just and merciful character. His character is just and merciful because mercy and justice are good. Since God is necessarily good, God is just and merciful. According to this independent standard of goodness, being merciful and just is precisely what a good character involves. In this case, even if God did not exist, one could say that a merciful and just character is good. Human beings could use this standard to evaluate peoples' character and actions based on this character. They could do this whether or not God exists.....

Indeed, he's confusing "God's nature" with "the goodness of God's nature." While God's nature itself may be necessary, this does not assure that the goodness of that nature is necessary. The goodness of that nature is dependent upon what it derives from. And this is either from himself, or from a source outside himself. If the goodness of God's nature depends only upon Himself, then whatever it is by necessity, then it is also necessarily good, regardless of what that nature is. Since it is good regardless of the specific nature of God, then that makes it arbitrary. God's nature could be necessarily that he considers rape and murder good, and if the goodness of his nature is only dependent on Himself, then those things would necessarily be good. Little Henry has the matter totally confused. But I doubt he's actually thinking about the meaning of things. He's just chanting "it is necessary" like it's some sort of ward against the problem. It isn't. But he can't even allow himself to consider the possibility that he's wrong about God being the source of morality as that's a dogma of his faith. God's nature may be necessary, and still the goodness of that nature may be arbitrary. They aren't opposed in this case because they apply to two separate things. But he doesn't see that.