But Gods moral law is not a belief or opinion. Since He created objective reality, He determined what is objectively good in this reality. See the definition of opinion above. Everything God does and says is based on fact and knowledge.
You have a self contradictory position here. On one hand you're claiming god created what is objectively good because of his moral character, however you also claim he didn't create his moral character.
If he didn't create the thing that morality has its objective basis in, then god did not create morality. It exists independently of him, and therefore he's irrelevant to the topic.
It is not tied to His mind but of course it influences His mind.
See above. If it's not a part of his mind and instead only informs his judgments, then it's an independent source to god. The basis of morality is not found within god even if he exists according to your own argument.
But again those are all subjective reasons to care about humans. Ie, your feelings and concern about humans and your own survival. But there is no objective reason to preserve humans if there is no God.
Re-read my argument. None of the things I listed are subjective and can be measured independently of personal opinion.
See above again this is all based on your subjective feelings about human civilization. Hitler's feelings about preserving Aryan society are no worse than your feelings about your particular society. And yours are no better objectively. They are both based on feelings and sentimentality for certain human societies. How do you determine objectively whose feelings are right?
Because the damage that Hitler did to other people, again, can be objectively measured. This isn't rocket science.
Do you not believe Hitler caused objective harm to Jews? If you agree that he did, then you're arguing disingenuously.
How does morality come from amoral processes? How can ought come from is? Just because most humans act this way does not mean that we OUGHT to act those ways. Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany provided those things to the majority of their populations and yet you condemn those societies. You have no objectively rational basis for doing so, as I demonstrated above.
Terms like good, bad, benefit and harm have definitions. We also have tried and true measures for ways that can improve things for people, or harm people. Helping someone save for retirement, educating them about how investments work and teaching them to be wise with their money is a large benefit. Killing that person when they were healthy and didn't want to die harms that person.
If you want to argue those points, then whatever definition you're using for good and bad don't match the common usage of those words, and therefore we aren't arguing the same thing.
If we had a society where everyone could kill everyone whenever they wanted, then you'd objectively face a greater risk of being killed. That can be measured. Therefore it's in your best interest to have a society where killing each other is not considered acceptable. In order to create that society, you OUGHT to not kill others. Again, it's not rocket science.
No, actually the Christians who fought for civil rights for blacks were and it can be proven objectively. The people fighting for the right of people to engage in immoral behavior and not be judged by it, are not orthodox and it can be proven objectively.
What is considered orthodox has changed dramatically over the centuries. It will very likely continue to change. What you consider orthodox will be different than what someone else considers orthodox, and therefore it's a subjective label.
ed: Fraid so. See just one study here:
Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders. People DO have a choice whether to engage in homosexual behavior. And studies have also shown that gay couples have higher rates of domestic violence with lesbian couples having the highest.
Of course someone has a choice to engage in homosexual behaviour. That's not the issue. If you choose to have sex with your wife or girlfriend, you are also making a choice to engage in heterosexual behaviour. The issue is attraction, and you don't choose to be attracted to women or men, that is hardwired into your brain.
As such, if you happen to be someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex, then why would you forego finding a partner just like any straight person would? Should these people be doomed to a life of loneliness just because your book of fables says so?
