Apologetics open challenge

[robvalue]

I don't understand what it even means to say objective morality "exists". Exists in what way? Where is it?

At best, this is saying there is only one correct moral assessment for each action. Which makes no sense either.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I've discovered this problem in nearly every serious conversation I've ever had with a theist. They invent terms which have ambiguous meanings (at best) and then put them forth with such assertiveness that we're expected (by them) to simply accept that this new term is a reality. For some reason, even pointing out to them how the new concept fails to comport with reality doesn't seem to deter them from continuing to think it exists, and to argue from the POV that it exists.

The number of "just-so" arguments are probably too numerous to count, but the big ones I encounter are the "objective morality" and "appearance of design" ones. I come from a fundamentalist background, so I somewhat understand the source of their unshakably solid hold on these ideas as real despite all the logical fallacies they encompass; I refer to it as the "incestuous thought-circles". It's not a slur on rednecks or any such, but a reference to a sort of "echo-chamber effect" in which they form insular communities of mutual agreement, then pass an idea around that community until they get the idea that everyone must accept such a "commonly-known" concept. Then they trot out into the bright light of day with it, and are shocked and appalled that in reality, few outside their communities have a problem seeing right through it... and they retreat back into the community for support and encouragement, then trot out with their freshly-polished (old) idea to try again and again, with the same result.

[Angrboda]

Epistemic insularity. The adoption of a set of rules for truth which guarantees autonomous development apart from reality.

I just made that up, but I like it.

[Angrboda]

I nearly forgot about this thread.

Here's another argument:

God cannot decide what objective morality is, or else it would be arbitrary. 
Objective morality thus cannot be created by God.
If God cannot create objective morality and decide what is, then neither can evolution, as God can create evolution.
Objective morality exists.
Thus objective morality is eternal.
Objective morality takes a perception to see.
Thus an eternal being who perceives objective morality always existed.

You're missing a step.  "Objective morality must be perceived in order to exist."  Unfortunately that tends to give the game away by revealing this "objective" morality as merely a concept in the mind of this eternal being, ergo, subjective.

[robvalue]

Epistemic insularity. The adoption of a set of rules for truth which guarantees autonomous development apart from reality.

I just made that up, but I like it.

I like it!

Also compare: quasi-linear untruth sandwich.

[Mystic]

If you believe some subjective views of morality are better then others, you believe in objective morality.

[Cyberman]

Epistemic insularity. The adoption of a set of rules for truth which guarantees autonomous development apart from reality.

I just made that up, but I like it.

If I can have Dolphinetics, you can can have epistemic insularity.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

If you believe some subjective views of morality are better then others, you believe in objective morality.

Except that's not what the term "objective morality" means, in any conventional sense. You're just redefining subjective (which it clearly is, when you have to use the term "if you believe" to define it) to mean objective in a new sense.

Quite literally, "subjective morality" means a belief that some views of morality are better than others. That's the whole point of it.

[robvalue]

If you believe some subjective views of morality are better then others, you believe in objective morality.

They can only be compared in any way once the goals of morality are established. So at the very least, the optimal morality depends on the goals.

Even then, the goals are likely to be very vague and difficult to quantify. Unless the goals include an incredibly detailed "scoring system" then it will still come down to interpretation.

[Ravenshire]

Why? Why couldn't it be the natural byproduct of another process? An accident of nature?

Bare assertion without evidence.

You're argument doesn't go far.

If time didn't exist, then something without time had to bring into being. It's a logical conclusion.

So, it couldn't have been something residing in another time stream/universe that set ours going by accident? It's as plausible as godidit.