The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God

[robvalue]

I don't even know what objective moral values "existing" would mean. There's three senses in which I could interpret this:

1) Morality is physical.

This appears to me to be total nonsense. Evidence should back this up, after describing what exactly morality is within the physical world.

2) Morality is an abstract concept; a way of assessing actions.

Abstract concepts don't "exist" in the same way we usually describe things existing. For there to be an "objective" morality, it can only mean that there's a "correct" way of measuring morality. This also appears to me to be total circular nonsense. Correct for what? The disagreements about what morality is discuss precisely how you'd measure it in the first place. We could come up with a very specific definition of what morality measures, and thus develop an objective standard, but what is the point? It only applies (abstractly, and without effect) to people who subscribe to that particular definition. We'd likely have an objective standard for each person.

3) Morality is a rule governing how reality functions, like the (apparent) laws of nature.

If this is the case, then there should be some way of demonstrating what exactly this law does. As it stands, it doesn't appear to do anything.

Since none of these make any sense, I can only conclude it's either people turning their own moral ideas into the "objective" morality, or an appeal to some authority. This is again pointless and circular.