Premise: Objective morals do not exist

If this is the case then a universal good and bad do not exist
and any gods which may or may not exist cannot be viewed
as "good" in any universal way. (Individuals may agree with
the god's morals but it would not necessarily be universal agreement)

We would also like to know where and how this "god" obtained his
personal set of morals.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
If this is the case then a universal good and bad do not exist
and any gods which may or may not exist cannot be viewed
as "good" in any universal way. (Individuals may agree with
the god's morals but it would not necessarily be universal agreement)

We would also like to know where and how this "god" obtained his
personal set of morals.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
If this is the case then a universal good and bad do not exist
and any gods which may or may not exist cannot be viewed
as "good" in any universal way. (Individuals may agree with
the god's morals but it would not necessarily be universal agreement)

We would also like to know where and how this "god" obtained his
personal set of morals.

Objectively, do what you think is right. This has been the case since, I dunno, the beginning?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
If this is the case then a universal good and bad do not exist
and any gods which may or may not exist cannot be viewed
as "good" in any universal way. (Individuals may agree with
the god's morals but it would not necessarily be universal agreement)

We would also like to know where and how this "god" obtained his
personal set of morals.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If that is the case torturing a baby for fun cannot always be wrong, but we all know it is.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
What? Can you explain.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If objective morals don't exist, how is the opinion that it is wrong to torture babies for fun any more valid that the opinion that it isn't?

Originally posted by @fmf
Are you of the opinion that torturing babies is wrong? Presumably, your answer is yes. What do you base your moral stance vis a vis the torturing of babies on? Is there a line of ancient Hebrew text or something?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Because I believe in God I subscribe to moral absolutism. The Bible says you should love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Originally posted by @fmf
If it is your opinion that 'torturing babies for fun' is wrong because there's a book you happen to like that says you should love your neighbour as you love yourself, then that's good news for any babies you come into contact with. I don't need the book that you like in order to find 'torturing babies for fun' to be wrong. Having said that, I welcome the effect that book has on your behaviour in so far as it results in morally sound acts.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
But you still don't believe that there is a universally 'correct' answer to the question, "Is it wrong to torture babies for fun?". If morality is subjective as you say it is it then it is simply your opinion vs someone else's and someone with a different opinion to you is just as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours.

Originally posted by @fmf
You are entitled to have whatever opinions you want about the morality of torturing babies, or about homosexual sex, or about 'getting angry with your brother ', or about exterminating 6 million people in death camps. You are entitled to your opinions on these things although, to varying degrees, the law may restrict your ability to translate your opinions on these matters into actions.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So Hitler was entitled to his opinions?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If there is no objective standard by which to differentiate between good and evil, how do you know that Hitler's opinions were wrong?