Can there be morality without God?

[Inkfingers]

So basically, it comes down to what you think god wants...not what is right and wrong.

I measure right and wrong against the foundation of the universe.

What do you measure it against?

I'm guessing if I asked you how you know what god wants, you'll throw some bible quotes at me.

I prefer reason, as the Bible means very little to those who do not believe it.

So, instead I'm going to ask why does god want to bring us "closer" to his own nature?

His nature being as I described it, he inherently promotes such and so brings us towards it.

Please don't think that's an unfair question. I could be asking why didn't god just make us closer to his own nature? Or why didn't he make us with the same qualities as his own nature? Both of those, I think, are much tougher questions.

As I've said before; God made the universe the way that it is because this is the only option for Real. We can imagine all manner of fake universes, but this is what reality means in practice (it could be no other way because any other way would go against what Real actually involves).

 

[Dave Ellis]

No. They have no standard to base their decision about right and wrong on other than their self.

How about objective consequences of your actions? That's a far more solid standard than your god.

 

[GlockMeister]

How about objective consequences of your actions? That's a far more solid standard than your god.

That can easily boil down to "don't get caught". Christians know God is always watching. So we know that even if we face no earthly consequences for the bad things we done, in the end we will have to answer for then.

 

[quatona]

That can easily boil down to "don't get caught".

If you are that kind of guy.

Christians know God is always watching. So we know that even if we face no earthly consequences for the bad things we done, in the end we will have to answer for then.

Good to hear your God helps keeping you in check.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I measure right and wrong against the foundation of the universe.

What do you measure it against?



I prefer reason, as the Bible means very little to those who do not believe it.



His nature being as I described it, he inherently promotes such and so brings us towards it.



As I've said before; God made the universe the way that it is because this is the only option for Real. We can imagine all manner of fake universes, but this is what reality means in practice (it could be no other way because any other way would go against what Real actually involves).

Not sure what you mean by "the foundation of the universe". Is this another way of saying you measure right and wrong against what god wants?

I'd say that I evaluate right and wrong according to a multitude of factors. These factors are largely determined by the circumstances surrounding the action/event/behavior that I'm evaluating. I can give you some examples of what these factors are... things like motive, intent, culture, consequences, location, time, reasoning ability...these are just a few though, it would be really difficult to list them all. Also, it's important to realize that not every factor is a consideration every time. Perhaps it would easiest if you described a situation in as much detail as possible (avoid any generalizations) and then I could tell you my moral evaluation of it and how I arrived at that evaluation.

When you say...

His nature being as I described it, he inherently promotes such and so brings us towards it.

Is that basically saying that he wants what he wants because it's in his nature to want it?

As I've said before; God made the universe the way that it is because this is the only option for Real.

I don't know why you're capitalizing "Real"...in the context you're using it, it appears to be synonymous with "reality". Is this what you mean? I don't really want to get into a conversation about reality (or rather a conversation about the way god created reality) since that isn't really the topic of the thread. Consider this though...

Christians (at least those who believe as Steve does) believe god finds killing immoral...yet he created a universe where everything animal (humans included) have to devour something that was living to survive. Something has to be killed in order for you, me, and everyone to live. It seems a bit odd then that he would decide killing to be immoral. Is this his idea of a joke? Perhaps he is completely misunderstood by mankind and he's actually a cruel, not benevolent, god. It seems to me that if he was indeed all powerful, he could've created us so that we get our sustenance the way plants do...from sunlight and minerals in the soil.

Yet if reality is what it is because it cannot be any other way (if that is what you're saying in the sentence I quoted above) then wouldn't the standards of objective morality be whatever they are regardless of what god thinks they are? If that is what they are, why aren't they apparent (like mathematics) or at least discoverable (like the laws of physics)?

 

[Inkfingers]

Not sure what you mean by "the foundation of the universe". Is this another way of saying you measure right and wrong against what god wants?

It means measuring right and wrong against the nature of the source of everything. A transcend objective source rather than just subjective desire. And yes I know you are probably thinking "isn't it just God's subjective desire instead" and the answer is no, because God is infinite spirit not a finite carnal mind like humans start with...read on

I'd say that I evaluate right and wrong according to a multitude of factors. These factors are largely determined by the circumstances surrounding the action/event/behavior that I'm evaluating. I can give you some examples of what these factors are... things like motive, intent, culture, consequences, location, time, reasoning ability...these are just a few though, it would be really difficult to list them all. Also, it's important to realize that not every factor is a consideration every time. Perhaps it would easiest if you described a situation in as much detail as possible (avoid any generalizations) and then I could tell you my moral evaluation of it and how I arrived at that evaluation.

That doesn't say how you decide what you consider to be right and wrong to begin with though. It only says how you decide how to apply such in any given moment.

When you say...

His nature being as I described it, he inherently promotes such and so brings us towards it.

Is that basically saying that he wants what he wants because it's in his nature to want it?

Yes and no.

Yes, as that is clearly what is the case.

No, because you make it sound like God is being a subjectivist when what we are talking about are the values that reality and existence themselves are based upon (ie: without them there would be no reality and existence).

As I said earlier - I measure right and wrong on the basis of the very foundation of reality, the essence of the very principle of real itself.

Christians (at least those who believe as Steve does) believe god finds killing immoral...yet he created a universe where everything animal (humans included) have to devour something that was living to survive. Something has to be killed in order for you, me, and everyone to live. It seems a bit odd then that he would decide killing to be immoral. Is this his idea of a joke? Perhaps he is completely misunderstood by mankind and he's actually a cruel, not benevolent, god. It seems to me that if he was indeed all powerful, he could've created us so that we get our sustenance the way plants do...from sunlight and minerals in the soil.

God finds murder immoral because it undermines the way he wants us to live with each other.

But he understands that killing is part of life and that we are all dependent on an ecosystem which itself is founded on things killing each other.

God isn't stupid. He realises that the world has to include killing. He just wants us to realise that living peacably is better than living in a warlike manner.

Yet if reality is what it is because it cannot be any other way (if that is what you're saying in the sentence I quoted above)

Yes, that is what I am saying.

then wouldn't the standards of objective morality be whatever they are regardless of what god thinks they are?

It's not a matter of what God thinks they are. God is not the inventor of morality. He's the essence of it. He's the eternal blueprint of the universe. The soul/spirit/mind of the universe. The greeks speak of Logos. The chinese speak of Tao. The hindu's speak of Brahman - they are all seeking to address the same thing (with varying degrees of accuracy, granted, but they are still looking to the same thing and trying to understand/describe such).

If that is what they are, why aren't they apparent (like mathematics) or at least discoverable (like the laws of physics)?

They are.

I just told you how they are back in the post where I answered your question to Steve about killing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It means measuring right and wrong against the nature of the source of everything. A transcend objective source rather than just subjective desire. And yes I know you are probably thinking "isn't it just God's subjective desire instead" and the answer is no, because God is infinite spirit not a finite carnal mind like humans start with...read on

That doesn't say how you decide what you consider to be right and wrong to begin with though. It only says how you decide how to apply such in any given moment.

Yes and no.

Yes, as that is clearly what is the case.

No, because you make it sound like God is being a subjectivist when what we are talking about are the values that reality and existence themselves are based upon (ie: without them there would be no reality and existence).

As I said earlier - I measure right and wrong on the basis of the very foundation of reality, the essence of the very principle of real itself.

God finds murder immoral because it undermines the way he wants us to live with each other.

But he understands that killing is part of life and that we are all dependent on an ecosystem which itself is founded on things killing each other.

God isn't stupid. He realises that the world has to include killing. He just wants us to realise that living peacably is better than living in a warlike manner.

Yes, that is what I am saying.

It's not a matter of what God thinks they are. God is not the inventor of morality. He's the essence of it. He's the eternal blueprint of the universe. The soul/spirit/mind of the universe. The greeks speak of Logos. The chinese speak of Tao. The hindu's speak of Brahman - they are all seeking to address the same thing (with varying degrees of accuracy, granted, but they are still looking to the same thing and trying to understand/describe such).

They are.

I just told you how they are back in the post where I answered your question to Steve about killing.

It means measuring right and wrong against the nature of the source of everything.

I think I understand what you're saying now, I just don't understand how you're going from that to some objective moral standard. Let's assume, hypothetically, that you could somehow ascertain god's "nature". I imagine you would use terms like "benevolent, loving, righteous, etc., to describe his nature. So how do you go from these abstract terms to an objective standard (like "homosexual behavior is wrong") without subjectively deciding what they mean to you personally? Couldn't someone just as easily make the argument that since god is loving and caring that homosexual behavior is right as long as it's done out of love and care for one another?

That doesn't say how you decide what you consider to be right and wrong to begin with though.

Nor would I want to. I don't think it's very wise to carry around such preconceived notions of moral good and bad and to then just apply those notions to all behaviors regardless of circumstances. You may find this hard to believe, but I don't really think of moral good and bad apart from actual situations anymore. If I do, I certainly can't think of any atm.

No, because you make it sound like God is being a subjectivist when what we are talking about are the values that reality and existence themselves are based upon (ie: without them there would be no reality and existence).

That's quite a bold claim lol. Let's just be clear on this though...this is just a belief of yours, not something that you can prove or even have any evidence for. That said, how would existence or reality end if worshipping idols was a moral good?

He realises that the world has to include killing.

Does it though? He couldn't have made it as I described where no one has to kill to survive? This seems like something of a tangent, like I said i didn't really want to get into, but wouldn't this undermine all of christianity? His whole "sacrifice for the sins of mankind shtick" doesn't seem so praiseworthy if this is the way reality had to be to exist. God goes from being a designer of something incredibly complex to the start button on a machine that is beyond his power.

I just told you how they are back in the post where I answered your question to Steve about killing.

I went back and read what you wrote, and I have to disagree. There are plenty of examples of how those things can benefit not just individuals... but everyone. If, for example, Hitler's mother had aborted him instead of giving birth to Adolf, we could have avoided so much death, chaos, corruption, and all these other things that you claim are against "god's nature". Yet, I'm fairly certain that you would say the abortion itself goes against god's nature. So which is it? Is it still a moral "bad" if it results in so many things that are consistent with god's supposed nature? Or is it a moral good because it stops so many things that are against god's supposed nature?

The problem is that there are so few things (I can't think of any really) that result in only good/bad for mankind. You're painting the world black and white when it's only grey.

 

[Inkfingers]

Let's assume, hypothetically, that you could somehow ascertain god's "nature". I imagine you would use terms like "benevolent, loving, righteous, etc., to describe his nature.

The terms I used earlier were "orderly, harmonious, peaceful, secure, enduring, and aware".

So how do you go from these abstract terms to an objective standard (like "homosexual behavior is wrong") without subjectively deciding what they mean to you personally? Couldn't someone just as easily make the argument that since god is loving and caring that homosexual behavior is right as long as it's done out of love and care for one another?

Well, as I also said earlier,

"murder, theft, rape, cheating, lying, disturbing and debauchery destroy order, harmony, peace, security, continuation, and awareness"

Homosexuality comes under debauchery (as does a great many things - Homosexuality is just the issue that gets raised most often on here, but it is about carnality in general; so also drunkenness, drug use, gluttony, adultery, promiscuity, to name but a few).

That's quite a bold claim lol. Let's just be clear on this though...this is just a belief of yours, not something that you can prove or even have any evidence for. That said, how would existence or reality end if worshipping idols was a moral good?

Last time I checked, bold claims are not something you avoid yourself.

I'm not getting drawn into a discussion on the subject of idol-worship though. This overall subject is easily turned into a million tangents.

He realises that the world has to include killing.

Does it though? He couldn't have made it as I described where no one has to kill to survive? This seems like something of a tangent, like I said i didn't really want to get into, but wouldn't this undermine all of christianity? His whole "sacrifice for the sins of mankind shtick" doesn't seem so praiseworthy if this is the way reality had to be to exist. God goes from being a designer of something incredibly complex to the start button on a machine that is beyond his power.

Not quite.

God could not have made the world other than it is because he could only have made a real world....and this is the only option for real. There are squillions of fantasy versions we can imagine, but real means what we have here.

How do I know this? There is no alternative to real. Which means there was never a time when the universe never was nor could there be anything other than the universe.

Does that deny the creation? No. The Bible doesn't begin with Darkness' "in the beginning, there was nothing" speech from Legend (the movie). There is existence and God forms it and gives it shape (Bara the hebrew word translated as "create" also means shape and form - it does not intrinsically mean "ex nihilo").

If, for example, Hitler's mother had aborted him instead of giving birth to Adolf, we could have avoided so much death, chaos, corruption, and all these other things that you claim are against "god's nature".

You could not know that in advance. Hindsight is no way to present morals. It may turn out that you become a mass murderer and your neighbour should kill you tonight....but we can't know that, can we.

So we recognise that murder is wrong, because if we say it is right it will destabilise our society....and God wants us to live in a manner closer to His nature.

 

[yesyoushould]

I'm told to avoid foolish question's.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The terms I used earlier were "orderly, harmonious, peaceful, secure, enduring, and aware".

Well, as I also said earlier,

"murder, theft, rape, cheating, lying, disturbing and debauchery destroy order, harmony, peace, security, continuation, and awareness"

Homosexuality comes under debauchery (as does a great many things - Homosexuality is just the issue that gets raised most often on here, but it is about carnality in general; so also drunkenness, drug use, gluttony, adultery, promiscuity, to name but a few).

Last time I checked, bold claims are not something you avoid yourself.

I'm not getting drawn into a discussion on the subject of idol-worship though. This overall subject is easily turned into a million tangents.

Not quite.

God could not have made the world other than it is because he could only have made a real world....and this is the only option for real. There are squillions of fantasy versions we can imagine, but real means what we have here.

How do I know this? There is no alternative to real. Which means there was never a time when the universe never was nor could there be anything other than the universe.

Does that deny the creation? No. The Bible doesn't begin with Darkness' "in the beginning, there was nothing" speech from Legend (the movie). There is existence and God forms it and gives it shape (Bara the hebrew word translated as "create" also means shape and form - it does not intrinsically mean "ex nihilo").

You could not know that in advance. Hindsight is no way to present morals. It may turn out that you become a mass murderer and your neighbour should kill you tonight....but we can't know that, can we.

So we recognise that murder is wrong, because if we say it is right it will destabilise our society....and God wants us to live in a manner closer to His nature.

]The terms I used earlier were "orderly, harmonious, peaceful, secure, enduring, and aware".

Right. And how does one know those are the aspects of god's nature and other things? I know more than a few christians who would argue for "loving" to be added...

"murder, theft, rape, cheating, lying, disturbing and debauchery destroy order, harmony, peace, security, continuation, and awareness"

Right...And even if we did accept homosexuality as "debauchery", how does it destroy any of those aspects of god's nature? Couldn't someone just as easily argue that it increases order by allowing more people to find love and become stable, successful families? How does "murder" work? It's a legal term...and different acts are considered "murder" in different places. So under your explanation here, abortion is a perfectly moral behavior. When it comes to lying and disturbing I could probably come up with a hundred examples where it increases order, peace, etc., if given enough time...

'm not getting drawn into a discussion on the subject of idol-worship though. This overall subject

I'm not trying to get into a long discussion of it. If you don't believe in the ten commandments, just say so. I'm asking because it doesn't seem to fit under any of the immoral categories you created. Neither does coveting your neighbor's wife for that matter....or working on the sabbath and ignoring god. In fact, it seems as if you don't need to acknowledge god at all and you could be perfectly moral.

There is existence and God forms it and gives it shape ...

You're contradicting yourself here. If the universe cannot have been anything else, then it always had this "shape" (whatever that refers to). If it had a different "shape" it wouldn't be Real"...unless you're claiming that the universe constantly changes to other "shapes".

You could not know that in advance. Hindsight is no way to present morals. It may turn out that you become a mass murderer and your neighbour should kill you tonight....but we can't know that, can we.

So we recognise that murder is wrong, because if we say it is right it will destabilise our society....and God wants us to live in a manner closer to His nature.

In the first three sentences, you're saying that consequences don't matter... murder is wrong even if the result is something very good for mankind.

In the last sentence, you're saying that consequences are the reason murder cannot be right...the consequences that it can "destabilize" society. Well, you can't have it both ways Im afraid....you can't keep contradicting your own logic and not expect me to call you on it. Which is it? Do the consequences determine whether murder is morally wrong or not?

 

[Inkfingers]

The terms I used earlier were "orderly, harmonious, peaceful, secure, enduring, and aware".

Right. And how does one know those are the aspects of god's nature and other things?

By using our reason to understand God.

"murder, theft, rape, cheating, lying, disturbing and debauchery destroy order, harmony, peace, security, continuation, and awareness"

Right...And even if we did accept homosexuality as "debauchery", how does it destroy any of those aspects of god's nature? Couldn't someone just as easily argue that it increases order by allowing more people to find love and become stable, successful families? How does "murder" work? It's a legal term...and different acts are considered "murder" in different places. So under your explanation here, abortion is a perfectly moral behavior. When it comes to lying and disturbing I could probably come up with a hundred examples where it increases order, peace, etc., if given enough time...

If you normalise debauchery you undermine the things that God wants for us.

There is existence and God forms it and gives it shape ...

You're contradicting yourself here. If the universe cannot have been anything else, then it always had this "shape" (whatever that refers to). If it had a different "shape" it wouldn't be Real"...unless you're claiming that the universe constantly changes to other "shapes".

The shapes are the things in the universe. God makes and directs them; giving the universe form. He does not make the universe ex nihilo though; as the idea of unexistence in any absolute sense is nonsense.

You could not know that in advance. Hindsight is no way to present morals. It may turn out that you become a mass murderer and your neighbour should kill you tonight....but we can't know that, can we.

So we recognise that murder is wrong, because if we say it is right it will destabilise our society....and God wants us to live in a manner closer to His nature.

In the first three sentences, you're saying that consequences don't matter... murder is wrong even if the result is something very good for mankind.

In the last sentence, you're saying that consequences are the reason murder cannot be right...the consequences that it can "destabilize" society. Well, you can't have it both ways Im afraid....you can't keep contradicting your own logic and not expect me to call you on it. Which is it? Do the consequences determine whether murder is morally wrong or not?

No, I'm not saying that consquences don't matter. I'm saying that you cannot know whether a person will be a murderer years before they murder....so you cannot go around killing people who you believe may become a new Hitler.....because to do so will destabilise society and thus work against God's purposes for us.

 

[Ana the Ist]

By using our reason to understand God.



If you normalise debauchery you undermine the things that God wants for us.

The shapes are the things in the universe. God makes and directs them; giving the universe form. He does not make the universe ex nihilo though; as the idea of unexistence in any absolute sense is nonsense.

No, I'm not saying that consquences don't matter. I'm saying that you cannot know whether a person will be a murderer years before they murder....so you cannot go around killing people who you believe may become a new Hitler.....because to do so will destabilise society and thus work against God's purposes for us.

That's it? Are you just going to ignore all those other questions that expose the holes in your notion of morality?

Would it help if I numbered them in some sort of order?

 

[Inkfingers]

That's it? Are you just going to ignore all those other questions that expose the holes in your notion of morality?

Would it help if I numbered them in some sort of order?

You don't appear to even get or agree with the basics, so there is no real point going into further detail.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You don't appear to even get or agree with the basics, so there is no real point going into further detail.

Why would I have to agree with you on the basics of your understanding of morality?

You're just avoiding the questions because you know it doesn't work in reality.

 

[Inkfingers]

Why would I have to agree with you on the basics of your understanding of morality?

You're just avoiding the questions because you know it doesn't work in reality.

It works fine thankyou. I've not seen a counter argument from you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It works fine thankyou. I've not seen a counter argument from you.

I've asked questions about the parts that make no sense...you don't seem to be able to answer. If you cannot explain your own understanding of morality, then perhaps you should avoid answering questions on the topic altogether.

 

[Inkfingers]

I've asked questions about the parts that make no sense...you don't seem to be able to answer. If you cannot explain your own understanding of morality, then perhaps you should avoid answering questions on the topic altogether.

Which questions?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which questions?

Well, for starters, I asked you how you came up with those aspects of god's nature because it appears entirely subjective. You said...
By using our reason to understand God.
So give me an example instead of this sweeping generalization. What was the reasoning you used to figure out "awareness" is an aspect of his nature? It seems to me that a god who requires faith from man to believe in his existence isn't a huge proponent of awareness.

I asked why homosexual behavior was morally wrong. You said that normalizing debauchery undermined society. How does homosexual behavior undermine society? All the research into the topic seems to disagree.

You said that god "shapes things in the universe". Well, we know that it's gravity that shapes things in the universe. Since god couldn't have made gravity any other way, it seems like he didn't shape a thing.

You said that consequences do matter... but reject the notion that aborting Hitler would be a good thing morally. Fine. The point still stands. Suppose you know someone who confessed to you that they are a serial killer and they will kill again. You know that the confession won't hold up in court and the police can't help. Would killing this person be a moral bad? If so...why? It seems to promote all those good things god stands for.

Then there's that whole list of questions you just plain avoided...

Since murder is a legal term, and some places define different actions as murder, who is right? Is abortion morally acceptable since it isn't murder?

Do the ten commandments not count in your system of morality? Worshipping idols, coveting your neighbors wife, and not observing the sabbath nor keeping it holy...none of these seem to fall under any of your categories for moral wrongs. They don't seem to "destroy" any of aspects of god's nature. Does that mean one can do all those things and they aren't morally wrong?

Finally, since consequences matter...if lying, disturbing, murder, theft (any of the things you listed that "destroy" the way god wants us to live) actually promote the way god wants us to live by their consequences...do they then become morally good?

 

[Inkfingers]

Well, for starters, I asked you how you came up with those aspects of god's nature because it appears entirely subjective. You said...
By using our reason to understand God.
So give me an example instead of this sweeping generalization. What was the reasoning you used to figure out "awareness" is an aspect of his nature? It seems to me that a god who requires faith from man to believe in his existence isn't a huge proponent of awareness.

Awareness is an attribute of God because God is the maker and shaper of all (and so must be aware to do so) and because God is the foundation of being (and He cannot be that in ignorance).

Hence God being the Logos.

I asked why homosexual behavior was morally wrong. You said that normalizing debauchery undermined society. How does homosexual behavior undermine society? All the research into the topic seems to disagree.

All debauched behaviour undermines society because it unleashes appetite, which is an anti-social force that simply consumes without thought for consequences.

You said that god "shapes things in the universe". Well, we know that it's gravity that shapes things in the universe. Since god couldn't have made gravity any other way, it seems like he didn't shape a thing.

Matter, extension, is nothing of itself. It requires a quality of mind to shape it in coherence and cohesion.

You said that consequences do matter... but reject the notion that aborting Hitler would be a good thing morally. Fine. The point still stands. Suppose you know someone who confessed to you that they are a serial killer and they will kill again. You know that the confession won't hold up in court and the police can't help. Would killing this person be a moral bad? If so...why? It seems to promote all those good things god stands for.

Words are cheap - you don't kill on the basis of claims.

Murder is a moral bad because it destroys trust and thus cohesion.

Since murder is a legal term, and some places define different actions as murder, who is right? Is abortion morally acceptable since it isn't murder?

See above.

Do the ten commandments not count in your system of morality? Worshipping idols, coveting your neighbors wife, and not observing the sabbath nor keeping it holy...none of these seem to fall under any of your categories for moral wrongs. They don't seem to "destroy" any of aspects of god's nature. Does that mean one can do all those things and they aren't morally wrong?

Those are more complex religious matters for discussion another day. Today I'm just giving you the basic introduction. If you cannot grasp GCSE, I'm not wasting my time trying to teach you A Levels.

Finally, since consequences matter...if lying, disturbing, murder, theft (any of the things you listed that "destroy" the way god wants us to live) actually promote the way god wants us to live by their consequences...do they then become morally good?

Potentially, in some cases, yes.

You'll be hard pressed to be able to use them that way (there are no saving graces in cheating and debauchery for example, or rape, but you can possibly justify rare occasions of stealing (the Valjean defence) or lying (Ann Frank in the attic) however that is only in response to an already badly decayed society).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Awareness is an attribute of God because God is the maker and shaper of all (and so must be aware to do so) and because God is the foundation of being (and He cannot be that in ignorance).

Hence God being the Logos.



All debauched behaviour undermines society because it unleashes appetite, which is an anti-social force that simply consumes without thought for consequences.



Matter, extension, is nothing of itself. It requires a quality of mind to shape it in coherence and cohesion.



Words are cheap - you don't kill on the basis of claims.

Murder is a moral bad because it destroys trust and thus cohesion.



See above.



Those are more complex religious matters for discussion another day. Today I'm just giving you the basic introduction. If you cannot grasp GCSE, I'm not wasting my time trying to teach you A Levels.



Potentially, in some cases, yes.

You'll be hard pressed to be able to use them that way (there are no saving graces in cheating and debauchery for example, or rape, but you can possibly justify rare occasions of stealing (the Valjean defence) or lying (Ann Frank in the attic) however that is only in response to an already badly decayed society).

Awareness is an attribute of God because God is the maker and shaper of all (and so must be aware to do so) and because God is the foundation of being (and He cannot be that in ignorance).

Ok...so anything that destroys "awareness" is a moral wrong? Like sleep? I didn't realize your criteria for deciding god's attributes was so...flimsy. God displays awareness... so awareness is one of his attributes. God also displays wrath... so I guess wrath would be one of his attributes as well.

All debauched behaviour undermines society because it unleashes appetite, which is an anti-social...

Being hungry unleashes appetite. Heterosexual behavior unleashes appetite. There's all kinds of appetites that all sorts of behaviors affect. Are they all immoral? Or just the ones you choose? Your claim here is unfounded, I've never seen evidence that homosexual behavior undermines society. Unless you can explain how it does, perhaps you should no longer consider it debauchery.

Matter, extension, is nothing of itself.

I'd say that most physicists and myself disagree. Matter is definitely something.... not nothing.

Words are cheap - you don't kill on the basis of claims.

Murder is a moral bad because it destroys trust and thus cohesion

It's a hypothetical. Imagine you have absolutely certainty... And killing them was the only way to stop them. Is it still wrong?
Your two sentences don't address the fact that abortion is legal and therefore not murder. If you're not going to claim otherwise, I can only assume you think god views abortion as moral. After all, I don't see who's trust is being destroyed by it.

Those are more complex religious matters for discussion another day. Today I'm just giving you the basic introduction.

Are they more complex? I think you're just having trouble explaining them as anything other than god's subjective desires. The only problem with worshipping a different god is that the christian god doesn't want you to. There's no reason to think it will harm society...the same goes for coveting your neighbors wife and working on Sundays.

Potentially, in some cases, yes.

Wonderful...we've left behind this tired notion of objective morality and accepted that subjective morality is the only system that describes reality. There's nothing objective about a moral standard that is sometimes bad, sometimes good, depending on the circumstances.