Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[Joshua260]

Joshua260, you have made some good points. Don't expect much from Davian though.

Thank you. As you know, history is replete with those who have hated Christianity with a fierce passion but who have later become devoted followers, Saul of course is a prime example. Unbelievers hated and persecuted Christ, and as ambassadors for Christ, we are sure to suffer the same. I was much like Davian years ago. I'm sure that some people are going to be surprised to see me when they get to heaven!! They could not have any idea that they had any impact on me.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua,
In a way what those here are saying, who propose there is no objective morality, is that there is a disconnect between the human mind and the world around us. They are saying one cannot trust their mind. One cannot really know what is around them with certainty. They have in a very real way given themselves over to the philosophical idea of Skepticism. I think Descartes was instrumental in institutionalizing this mindset, although he was not trying to. He is quoted as saying "cogito, ergo sum," meaning: I think, therefore I am. He said this because he was determined to start his philosophical musing by admitting he knew nothing and work from there outward to what he could safely affirm. Of course we do think and we do exist but to base a new philosophical movement on doubt is to have a false start. And those who start with Skepticism, knowingly or unknowingly, have left the real world.

I am what one would call a Thomist Realist, which by the way is conducive to Christian theological truth, as St. Thomas Aquinas has shown. This simply means I start with reality. Truth is conformity of our mind to reality in-other-words. I work out from there with the real world as my standard... my measure. I think the gospels are full of Christ and the apostles and old testament saints insisting that we base ourselves solidly in this world and as we do we can better understand the heavenly realm. Jesus pointed to the weather to refer to the sign of the times and St. Paul to the earthly temple to refer to the heavenly temple, and so forth.

So I say the disconnnect is that moralists who start with the subjectivity of the human mind are caught in a bind they cannot get out of. They move from Skepticism to Idealism and back to dig an ontological and epistemological hole they cannot get out from.. They don't see the simple truth that our mind was made precisely to know reality around us. And it is trustworthy! Despite the fact we can error in our thinking we can also see reality perfectly clear. And so this idea that science is objective while morality is subjective is a lack of taking into account both the knower and the known. We can talk about one or the other, we can concentrate on either, focus in deeply upon either, but we can never do so in a way we lose our sight of both; that we do realize there is the known AND the knower.

This is why I insist we relate the scientific method to the mind as well as morality. It good to point out that morality is universal and objective because it comes from God, but it is also necessary to point out that our mind comes from God and it is meant to know. We can have and do have certainty of knowledge. Without our ability to be certain doubt and Skepticism reign and so why should we think this lacking in the human mind does not apply to moral reality too?

Anyhow your arguments are good and I concure with them. Keep the faith brother and know that I am with you in trying to get others to see Christ is the way, truth and the life.

Great commentary!! Totally agree.

 

[Davian]

Joshua260 said: ↑
The question I pose is "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?" Care to answer?

"Objective" means that something is right or wrong regardless of what any human being thinks.

Sure. So why can you not apply that to the hypothetical I posed and provide an answer?

Lol!! That's not fallacious at all!! It is either A or not A.

Of course. Bigfoot exists, or it doesn't. Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial aliens, or it isn't. The fallacy appears when you try to force me to choose from two positions on a given subject, when there are more than two.

This doesn't work for WLC; do you really think you can cut-and-paste his tactics into an internet forum with any success?

All you are doing is refusing to make a truth claim.

I am refusing to accept your false dichotomy.

However, I *have* made the truth claim the OMV&Ds do exist, based on a properly basic belief...just like I believe in the existence of the outside world, memories, and that the world did not just come into being 5 minutes ago...and I have so far not heard any rebuttal to it.

The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified.

Instead of demonstrating why I am incorrect,

Or you demonstrating why you are correct, as that burden still lies with you.

all I'm getting from you atheists is that you "don't know" or that you have "insufficient information" and that is not a truth claim, but simply a refusal to engage...or as you put it...a dodge.

Not at all. I would like to see what you mean by this "objective morality" that you speak of. As stated in my earlier post: I have been told by another in these forums there are circumstances where [hypothetically] someone has observed a child being raped, and has the ability to interfere, allows it to happen, and says nothing to anyone about it, and, in some roundabout logic that I cannot grasp, this 'someone' is still [within the hypothetical] considered "good".

If you knew that I had observed a child being raped, and had the ability to interfere, yet allowed it to happen, and kept quiet about it, by your "objective" morality would I be "good" or "bad"?

Your evasion of this hypothetical gives me the impression that this allegedly "objective morality" of yours is broken down, and should just be pushed to the side of the road for now.

 

[pakicetus]

Unbelievers hated and persecuted Christ

I think this is sloppy thinking. Which unbelievers? All of them or just some of them?

 

[Joshua260]

We cannot know whether or not god exists, so we must wager. If you believe in god, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. If you don't, you have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Ergo, we should bet on god's existence every time.

And then there are some extra bits in which he tries to rationalize away every other religion's hell, but that's the basic gist of it. And it is phenomenally flawed.

Well thanks so much for posting your synopsis of Pascal's wager. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. But don't despair because as I said, no atheists I've talked to has ever really gotten it quite right, although you came close. After Pascal died, they found all these little bits of writings of his, so it appears that Pascal was planning to author an apologetic for his faith. They eventually organized all of those bits of writings into what is known as the Pensees, which means "Thoughts". So in order to understand Pascal's wager properly, you have to consider it within the context of the whole body of his work. I've read his work a few times, and I'm a big fan of his. If I were going to organize his thoughts related to the wager into a syllogism, I might compose it like the following:

1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.
2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.
3. Therefore, it is better to believe in the Christian God than not.

Atheists offer various rebuttals. Very few dispute premise 2, and there's quite a bit of logic to demonstrate it's truth if you were to research it. Matt Dillahunty replied with "which god" and "how can I force myself to believe" (which of course Pascal meant "place your trust in"...even as Jesus himself said) Atheists also say what you did "We cannot know whether or not god exists", and I'm pretty sure that Pascal *did* say that...but atheists always ignore, or may not even know, that Pascal *also* examined the *evidence for the Christian god*and also *compared that faith to others*and came to the conclusion that not only was the Christian faith superior to the others, but that the evidence was sufficient for one to come to a reasonable faith in the Christian god. But...as you said...we cannot *know* that the Christian god exists. So this is the foundation behind my premise 1 above.

So the argument Pascal made is a valid one. It just boils down to whether you accept or deny the arguments and evidence supporting premise 1... as usual.

Well, not retroactively, anyways. But again, it's about the goals we want to pursue. Is the goal of our morality to build a better society? Well then there are objectively better or worse moves. Is the goal of our morality "kill 'em all"? Well then clearly, we're talking about two very different things, and I'm not sure I feel comfortable referring to that as morality.

Again, you are slipping back into your epistemology of which I have zero interest in.

It's amazing to me that I can't get any atheists to concur that "raping little girls for fun" is wrong no matter what any human thinks. Instead, I get comments like "we don't know" or "there is insufficient information". I have to say, I would never hire a babysitter who couldn't figure this out!!

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua260 said: ↑
"Unbelievers hated and persecuted Christ"

I think this is sloppy thinking. Which unbelievers? All of them or just some of them?

Is what I said a false statement (according to the NT)?

 

[Davian]

Joshua260, you have made some good points.

I didn't see them. Perhaps they were drowned out by the fallacies and false dichotomies.

Don't expect much from Davian though.

I'm not the one making the truth claims. I am only here to observe.

On that subject, thanks for the puppet show.

 

[Joshua260]

Sure. So why can you not apply that to the hypothetical I posed and provide an answer?

Of course. Bigfoot exists, or it doesn't. Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial aliens, or it isn't. The fallacy appears when you try to force me to choose from two positions on a given subject, when there are more than two.

This doesn't work for WLC; do you really think you can cut-and-paste his tactics into an internet forum with any success?

I am refusing to accept your false dichotomy.

The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified.



Or you demonstrating why you are correct, as that burden still lies with you.

Not at all. I would like to see what you mean by this "objective morality" that you speak of. As stated in my earlier post: I have been told by another in these forums there are circumstances where [hypothetically] someone has observed a child being raped, and has the ability to interfere, allows it to happen, and says nothing to anyone about it, and, in some roundabout logic that I cannot grasp, this 'someone' is still [within the hypothetical] considered "good".

If you knew that I had observed a child being raped, and had the ability to interfere, yet allowed it to happen, and kept quiet about it, by your "objective" morality would I be "good" or "bad"?

Your evasion of this hypothetical gives me the impression that this allegedly "objective morality" of yours is broken down, and should just be pushed to the side of the road for now.

Davian,

I asked the question "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?"

It's a simple yes or no question and not a false dichotomy. OMV&Ds either exist or don't. Whether or not you know they exist does nothing to change their ontological state...is that not correct?. So when you decide to take a side, let me know and I'll be glad to continue our discussion on this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well thanks so much for posting your synopsis of Pascal's wager. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. But don't despair because as I said, no atheists I've talked to has ever really gotten it quite right, although you came close. After Pascal died, they found all these little bits of writings of his, so it appears that Pascal was planning to author an apologetic for his faith. They eventually organized all of those bits of writings into what is known as the Pensees, which means "Thoughts". So in order to understand Pascal's wager properly, you have to consider it within the context of the whole body of his work. I've read his work a few times, and I'm a big fan of his. If I were going to organize his thoughts related to the wager into a syllogism, I might compose it like the following:

1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.
2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.
3. Therefore, it is better to believe in the Christian God than not.

Atheists offer various rebuttals. Very few dispute premise 2, and there's quite a bit of logic to demonstrate it's truth if you were to research it. Matt Dillahunty replied with "which god" and "how can I force myself to believe" (which of course Pascal meant "place your trust in"...even as Jesus himself said) Atheists also say what you did "We cannot know whether or not god exists", and I'm pretty sure that Pascal *did* say that...but atheists always ignore, or may not even know, that Pascal *also* examined the *evidence for the Christian god*and also *compared that faith to others*and came to the conclusion that not only was the Christian faith superior to the others, but that the evidence was sufficient for one to come to a reasonable faith in the Christian god. But...as you said...we cannot *know* that the Christian god exists. So this is the foundation behind my premise 1 above.

So the argument Pascal made is a valid one. It just boils down to whether you accept or deny the arguments and evidence supporting premise 1... as usual.

Again, you are slipping back into your epistemology of which I have zero interest in.

It's amazing to me that I can't get any atheists to concur that "raping little girls for fun" is wrong no matter what any human thinks. Instead, I get comments like "we don't know" or "there is insufficient information". I have to say, I would never hire a babysitter who couldn't figure this out!!

Joshua,

I appreciate the value of Pascal's Wager in a way similar to you, but do remember that you can't really use Pascal for Foundational purposes. His view is recognized as one that befits a more Fideistic position (by Norman Geisler, no less).

There is more to all of this epistemological complexity than many Christians (or even some Atheists) surmise.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Davian]

Thank you. As you know, history is replete with those who have hated Christianity with a fierce passion

I have seen no evidence of hate in these forums.

but who have later become devoted followers, Saul of course is a prime example.

"All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.”" - Isaac Asimov

Unbelievers hated and persecuted Christ, and as ambassadors for Christ, we are sure to suffer the same.

I don't think I would equate having your posts dismantled in an internet forum with the Bible stories you allude to.

I was much like Davian years ago.

How did you determine that? Do you have one of those mind reading hats?

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

I'm sure that some people are going to be surprised to see me when they get to heaven!! They could not have any idea that they had any impact on me.

...assuming that your beliefs amount to more than wishful thinking.

 

[Davian]

Davian,

I asked the question "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?"

It's a simple yes or no question and not a false dichotomy. OMV&Ds either exist or don't. Whether or not you know they exist does nothing to change their ontological state...is that not correct?

Of course. Bigfoot exists, or it doesn't. Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial aliens, or it isn't. The fallacy appears when you try to force me to choose from two positions on a given subject, when there are more than two.

So when you decide to take a side, let me know and I'll be glad to continue our discussion on this.

I can't take a side until I have an idea of what you are talking about. Does my hypothetical expose a hole in your theology that you are uncomfortable with? Has that broken down as well?

Is that not the same problem that anonymous person has with his theology?

 

[anonymous person]

Thank you. As you know, history is replete with those who have hated Christianity with a fierce passion but who have later become devoted followers, Saul of course is a prime example. Unbelievers hated and persecuted Christ, and as ambassadors for Christ, we are sure to suffer the same. I was much like Davian years ago. I'm sure that some people are going to be surprised to see me when they get to heaven!! They could not have any idea that they had any impact on me.

Yours is a story similar to mine then!

 

[quatona]

The question I pose is "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?" Care to answer?

What good is collecting subjective opinions about this?

Are you unwilling to answer with a simple yes or no?

Sure. Why would I take an affirmative position on something I am not able to judge?

What I do know is: subjective moral values and duties exist. That´s demonstrably the case.
I don´t know, though, that objective moral values and duties exist. I wouldn´t even know how to objectively search for them. I wouldn´t know the criteria by which to discern them.
But, of course, I am open to follow anyone´s demonstration that such objective moral values and duties exist.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua,

I appreciate the value of Pascal's Wager in a way similar to you, but do remember that you can't really use Pascal for Foundational purposes. His view is recognized as one that befits a more Fideistic position (by Norman Geisler, no less).

There is more to all of this epistemological complexity than many Christians (or even some Atheists) surmise.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

If you mean that we should not rely on faith alone, that is not what Pascal advocated (although many atheists claim that). As I explained, Pascal was well versed in all of the apologetic arguments and evidences for the Christian faith...this is the part that most atheists (and I believe even many Christians) either forget or do not know when discussing the argument. Unfortunately, the argument is usually presented, even by some Christians, out of context. I would hazard to guess that Pascal probably believed that the existence of the Christian god (based on all of the arguments and evidences he studied) was more probable than not, but that is just my guess...I cannot recall if Pascal stated that explicitly in his work. So he was just trying to say that even if we set the probability at 50%, it was more rational to err on the side of Christianity.

Thanks for your comments. Very interesting. In fact, all this talk is awakening a desire in me to pull out my copy of the Pensees again for another round!!

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua260 said:
The question I pose is "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?"

What good is collecting subjective opinions about this?

I'm looking for an atheist who is willing to make a truth claim, just like I did.
It's hard to believe that no atheist will make the truth claim that "raping little girls for fun" is wrong no matter what any human thinks.

Heck after all, this is exactly what the US founding fathers did. They made a truth claim in the Declaration of Independence, that we were endowed with certain inalienable rights from a creator, and we were thus justified in separating from the mother country (this same belief was also implied in the Bill of Rights).

 

[quatona]

Joshua260 said:
The question I pose is "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?"



I'm looking for an atheist who is willing to make a truth claim, just like I did.

You are looking for someone who makes a stupid claim? Just so you don´t have to address the views atheists actually hold?
And to distract from the fact that you can´t support your truth claim?
That´s...bold.
Even more amazing is that you admit your tactics.

It's hard to believe that no atheist will make the truth claim that "raping little girls for fun" is wrong no matter what any human thinks.

Well, I guess, intelligent persons realize that voicing a subjective opinion that contains the qualifier "objective" doesn´t render it objective.
Thus, you asking me for my subjective opinion as to what´s objective isn´t leading anywhere.

Heck after all, this is exactly what the US founding fathers did.

Yeah, it´s a pity they are all dead - or else you could try your script with them.

 

[Davian]

...
1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.

Are we talking of the "God" character in the bible that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

What year do you live in? Do you really think it likely as not that virtually all of mainstream science is wrong?

2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.

This suggests that belief is a conscious choice. Are you still of this opinion?

3. Therefore, it is better to believe in the Christian God than not.

Therefore, it is better to believe that the Earth is flat, so as not to suffer the stress of worrying about the Australians falling off into space....

 

[Joshua260]

Just a question: Do you think it would've been moral to kill Hitler in order to stop the holocaust?

Hi!

I've been busy with other responses but wanted to get back to this one because I think it is an interesting and challenging question. I'm going to have to think through this one...I've heard it asked before, but never took the time to answer it myself.

So do I think it would be moral to kill Hitler in order to stop the holocaust?

Well, first, as I've been saying, I believe that *objective* moral values and duties OMV&Ds *do* exist. Usually we say "absolute" or "objective" to differentiate from "subjective" MV&Ds. I believe that the bible teaches the existence of *objective* (not absolute) MV&Ds in that sometimes (for example) it is acceptable to kill while other times it is not. As many have pointed out, the correct interpretation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really "Thou shalt not *murder*". Moreover, I believe in the existence in the Christian god as opposed to any other.

Right there we've elevated the question to the level of God himself.

So, now I ask myself:
Do I think that God would have me kill Hitler in order to stop the holocaust?

I think that's pretty obvious that the answer is yes. That would be the moral "ought" placed on me. You made the question a little easier for me by using the phrase *stop the holocaust*, suggesting that Hitler has already began murdering Jews (as opposed to a situation where I might be seeing into a possible future). Therefore, yes, I believe God would have me kill Hitler in order to stop him from *murdering* more Jews. As I said, the bible teaches *objective* MV&Ds as opposed to *absolute* MV&Ds. Killing is not necessarily the same as murdering.

I suspect that you may continue conversation by asking:

Ok, so why didn't God prevent Hitler from bringing about the holocaust?

Two things:
1. Of course, that would override God's gift to man of free will. The existence of moral evil is a natural consequence of granting us the freedom to do evil.

2. "What" you say?? "Is free will more important that 6 million Jewish lives?"
Ok, so you should know that I am a Molinist. That means that I believe that God knows what we would do given certain conditions (these are called counterfactuals of creaturely freedom) and that he chose to actualize a (feasible) world (given said counterfactuals) in which his ultimate goals would be accomplished. It may be that there is no feasible world in which the holocaust would *not* have occurred.

I think his ultimate goal is beyond the finite limits of the holocaust, but let's stay with that subject for a bit. What if the tragic loss of those precious 6 million Jews, *prevented untold millions more* that *would have occurred* in an alternate world? Do you think that having gone through that horrible experience, we are much more educated and learned about possibly letting something like that happen again? I see that you live in Germany...is it not true that several concentration camps still exist...partly *for the purpose that we will never forget* what happened in WW2? Have we not become a better society learning from the tragedy that occurred then? So some evil is allowed to happen in order to teach us (one purpose for the allowance of evil). There's really no way for us to know what methods God will use to achieve his ultimate goals. Btw, that is why the problem of evil argument fails to prove that God does not exist. God is certainly all-loving, and all-powerful, but there could be valid reasons for allowing evil to exist. Listen, Satan is an idiot! How can anyone outwit the best logistician (God) that ever existed.

Here's an example of an evil that was allowed, and which God used to bring about good.
"But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it to good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Genesis 50:20.

Thanks for the question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi!

I've been busy with other responses but wanted to get back to this one because I think it is an interesting and challenging question. I'm going to have to think through this one...I've heard it asked before, but never took the time to answer it myself.

So do I think it would be moral to kill Hitler in order to stop the holocaust?

Well, first, as I've been saying, I believe that *objective* moral values and duties OMV&Ds *do* exist. Usually we say "absolute" or "objective" to differentiate from "subjective" MV&Ds. I believe that the bible teaches the existence of *objective* (not absolute) MV&Ds in that sometimes (for example) it is acceptable to kill while other times it is not. As many have pointed out, the correct interpretation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really "Thou shalt not *murder*". Moreover, I believe in the existence in the Christian god as opposed to any other.

Right there we've elevated the question to the level of God himself.

So, now I ask myself:
Do I think that God would have me kill Hitler in order to stop the holocaust?

I think that's pretty obvious that the answer is yes. That would be the moral "ought" placed on me. You made the question a little easier for me by using the phrase *stop the holocaust*, suggesting that Hitler has already began murdering Jews (as opposed to a situation where I might be seeing into a possible future). Therefore, yes, I believe God would have me kill Hitler in order to stop him from *murdering* more Jews. As I said, the bible teaches *objective* MV&Ds as opposed to *absolute* MV&Ds. Killing is not necessarily the same as murdering.

I suspect that you may continue conversation by asking:

Ok, so why didn't God prevent Hitler from bringing about the holocaust?

Two things:
1. Of course, that would override God's gift to man of free will. The existence of moral evil is a natural consequence of granting us the freedom to do evil.

2. "What" you say?? "Is free will more important that 6 million Jewish lives?"
Ok, so you should know that I am a Molinist. That means that I believe that God knows what we would do given certain conditions (these are called counterfactuals of creaturely freedom) and that he chose to actualize a (feasible) world (given said counterfactuals) in which his ultimate goals would be accomplished. It may be that there is no feasible world in which the holocaust would *not* have occurred.

I think his ultimate goal is beyond the finite limits of the holocaust, but let's stay with that subject for a bit. What if the tragic loss of those precious 6 million Jews, *prevented untold millions more* that *would have occurred* in an alternate world? Do you think that having gone through that horrible experience, we are much more educated and learned about possibly letting something like that happen again? I see that you live in Germany...is it not true that several concentration camps still exist...partly *for the purpose that we will never forget* what happened in WW2? Have we not become a better society learning from the tragedy that occurred then? So some evil is allowed to happen in order to teach us (one purpose for the allowance of evil). There's really no way for us to know what methods God will use to achieve his ultimate goals. Btw, that is why the problem of evil argument fails to prove that God does not exist. God is certainly all-loving, and all-powerful, but there could be valid reasons for allowing evil to exist. Listen, Satan is an idiot! How can anyone outwit the best logistician (God) that ever existed.

Here's an example of an evil that was allowed, and which God used to bring about good.
"But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it to good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Genesis 50:20.

Thanks for the question.

Here's a twist in the inquiry previously posed to you:

If you had lived in ancient times past, and lived in relations to the Jewish people--

1) ... do you think it would be moral to kill Nebuchadnezzar in order to stop the destruction of the Jewish people and the Holy Land, as well as the Exile (i.e. enslaved subjection) of the few remaining Jewish people to Babylon?

2) ...do you think it would be moral to kill Vespasian and Titus in order to stop the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, along with its Jewish inhabitants, not to mention the later Dispersion of the rest of the Jewish population across the Roman Empire?

Just asking. [And if anyone else would like to take a shot at answering these questions, feel free to do so.]

2PhiloVoid

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My belief that there are objective moral values and duties is just as valid as my believe in the outside world. It's called a properly basic belief. For example, if you tried to convince me that I'm really just a brain in a vat, you would have to provide a really good argument to justify my acceptance of your claim. In like manner, the existence of OMV&Ds is a properly basic belief, and I am perfectly justified in believing in them until you provide a pretty good argument to the contrary.

So really, it is you who are making an assumption without any reason to do so. That was the whole point of the quote I provided earlier. Any argument claiming that OMV&Ds do *not* exist would have to based on premises that are much more convincing that what seems to be obvious (that they do exist).

Sorry, "seems obvious" is not good enough, and you are trying to switch the burden of proof. First, it would help if you define what you mean by "objective moral values and duties."

Try this out:
Is raping little girls for fun *really* wrong, no matter what any human being thinks?
Answer yes or no.
If no, then you will need to provide an argument for why we should disbelieve what seems to be so obvious. To believe otherwise without justification would be irrational.

Once again, you're just repeating the same mistake as before. A subjectivist can still claim that doing so is wrong. Ethical subjectivism is not equivalent to moral nihilism. There's no point in continuing this until you grasp this point.