The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Strathos]

That guy has a lot of followers and is very influential.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Modern historians don't acknowledge your point because the evidence does not support it in any way shape or form.

Fraid so, see above.

riv: USA separation of church and state maybe the thing that if Germany had could of slowed Hitler down a little, he would not have found it so easy to discriminate in those early years. You also cannot talk about the US being the shining light due to objective morality, given slavery and the constant fight for equality that has happened afterwards. Where was this fabled objective morality when Martin Luther King was alive?

The very fights that you refer to, even to the death in the Civil War, for equality, were inspired by Christian morality. Nations that were not founded on Christian principles, generally do not even have or allow these fights. Look at Asian nations and Muslim nations. MLK based his entire fight on how human laws should be judged by God's objective moral law. Read his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail."

riv: "We are all Gods Children" and thus equal "...but you still don't get a seat on the bus"

Exactly that is why many Christians though I admit not all, fought for those principles that our nation was founded on but because we are all sinners we have not always followed. But because they are there, we always have that as an objective standard as a goal. Atheistic and humanistic (liberal "Christian")nations dont have such a standard or goal to work for, they just drift with the popular opinion, and this is what happened in Germany and is starting to happen in former Christian based nations such as the Europeans.

 

[SPF]

IF God exist, (and that’s a big IF) the only way his character could be considered the objective moral standard for ALL of mankind is if ALL of mankind defines morality according to God’s moral character. A quick look into the real world, and you will see most people don’t even recognize the existence of this God let alone his moral character. So IF (again IF) most were wrong and this God did exist, by definition his character cannot be what human morality is based on

If God exists (not talking about any specific religious view of God), and we understand God to be a Maximally Great Being (which He would have to be to be God), which would mean that God possesses certain attributes such as immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence - then we could say that morality is objective because morality would stem from God's character, which is unchanging. It wouldn't matter one iota whether or not people recognized or not the authority of God, the moral law is based upon God's character, not popular opinion, or belief.

In other words, if “X” is objectively wrong, there will be no circumstances when “X” could be right. If you can come up with a scenario where “X” could be considered right, then morality is subjective; not objective.

Correct. For example, cold blooded murder is objectively wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

If God exists (not talking about any specific religious view of God), and we understand God to be a Maximally Great Being (which He would have to be to be God),

Contradiction. If you are not talking about any specific religious view of God, you can’t define God as a “maximally great being” because there are countless concepts of God that are not a maximally great being. Is Kumari considered maximally great? I think not.

which would mean that God possesses certain attributes such as immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence

You need to understand; not all concepts of God are described like your Christian God; not everybody describes God as Immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence.

- then we could say that morality is objective because morality would stem from God's character, which is unchanging. It wouldn't matter one iota whether or not people recognized or not the authority of God, the moral law is based upon God's character, not popular opinion, or belief.

Whose moral law? Yours? Perhaps others who believe as you do? My moral laws are not based on your God’s character, and neither are others who don’t recognize Yahweh (the God you are obviously are describing) as God; they are based on something else.

Correct. For example, cold blooded murder is objectively wrong.

Murder is a legal term. Remember; just because its legal doesn’t make it right. If somebody had killed Idi Amin in order to prevent the genocide he enacted on innocent people, according to the law of that land that he ruled, it would have been considered murder. When you consider the atrocities he committed against all of those people, would you consider killing him to prevent it wrong?

 

[SPF]

Contradiction. If you are not talking about any specific religious view of God, you can’t define God as a “maximally great being” because there are countless concepts of God that are not a maximally great being. Is Kumari considered maximally great? I think not.

I apologize, I took for granted that you probably had some sort of philosophical education. God, if He exists, must by definition be a Maximally Great Being (MGB). In other words, if God exists, there is no greater being. Different religions have different characteristics assigned to God, many religions have "lesser gods" as well as the "ultimate God" (if they even have a God) behind the scenes. But suffice to say, if God does actually exist in reality, He IS a MGB.

Whose moral law? Yours? Perhaps others who believe as you do? My moral laws are not based on your God’s character, and neither are others who don’t recognize Yahweh (the God you are obviously are describing) as God; they are based on something else.

It's very simple, morality is either objective or subjective. By objective, I mean that moral actions are either right or wrong regardless of what anyone thinks or feels. By subjective, I mean that there is no standard for morality and nobody has the ethical authority to tell someone an action they have committed is right or wrong.

The above, simply by acknowledging the law of non-contradiction, is true. In the same way, "God exists", as a truth-claim, is either true or false. It does not matter if 100% of the earth's population were to believe that God did not exist when in reality He did exist. Personal beliefs do not impact what is True. Truth, by the way, is defined simply as "That which corresponds to reality" Thus, if it is true, meaning if it corresponds to reality that God exists, then no amount of belief against God's existence would impact the reality of God's existence.

So, let's take this full circle back to morality and actions. We have two options, and if you think that's a false dilemma, I welcome you to present a third. But either God exists or God does not exist. If God exists, then morality can be objective because morality would be based upon the character of God. And because God is a MGB, and we know (I'm taking this for granted) that attributes such as perfection are greater than non-perfection - we can know that morality is objective because it's based in the perfect character of God.

However, if God does not exist, then we can very easily say that morality is subjective. The reason being is that if God does not exist, then man becomes the measure of what's right and wrong, and no man has more inherent and innate authority over another man to dictate to them what is morally right and wrong.

Now, as far as testing that in the real world, I think we can see that humanity actually does testify for the notion of objective morals. I say this because I don't know of a culture that has ever existed that taught that virtues such as honesty, justice, and loyalty were vices to be avoided while vices such as envy, hatred, and slothfulness were virtues to be extolled.

We seem to have an innate understanding that it is always morally wrong for a 42 year old man to physically molest a 13 year old girl. We seem to have an innate understanding that it is always wrong for a person to murder another in cold blood.

 

[Ken-1122]

I apologize, I took for granted that you probably had some sort of philosophical education. God, if He exists, must by definition be a Maximally Great Being (MGB). In other words, if God exists, there is no greater being. Different religions have different characteristics assigned to God, many religions have "lesser gods" as well as the "ultimate God" (if they even have a God) behind the scenes. But suffice to say, if God does actually exist in reality, He IS a MGB.

Again; you're speaking of your concept of God. Now if you wish to speak of YOUR God, let me know because that is a different conversation than the one you started with when you spoke of “no particular religious view of God”. If you gonna move the goal posts, let me know so we can have an understanding during this discussion.

It's very simple, morality is either objective or subjective. By objective, I mean that moral actions are either right or wrong regardless of what anyone thinks or feels. By subjective, I mean that there is no standard for morality and nobody has the ethical authority to tell someone an action they have committed is right or wrong.

I agree with your objective definition, but not your subjective definition. There is always a standard for morality; without a standard, there is no morality! Now Subjective morality doesn’t claim a single moral standard; (everybody generally brings their own moral standard to the table for discussion) but just because there isn’t a single moral standard doesn’t mean no standard at all!

Now as far as having the ethical authority to tell someone an action is right or wrong, that’s what the discussion is about; if my subjective moral standard is a little different than yours, we have a discussion about our different moral standards, perhaps convincing one way or the other of a different point of view.

The above, simply by acknowledging the law of non-contradiction, is true. In the same way, "God exists", as a truth-claim, is either true or false. It does not matter if 100% of the earth's population were to believe that God did not exist when in reality He did exist. Personal beliefs do not impact what is True. Truth, by the way, is defined simply as "That which corresponds to reality" Thus, if it is true, meaning if it corresponds to reality that God exists, then no amount of belief against God's existence would impact the reality of God's existence.

I agree! And of course that argument can be used the opposite way as well.

So, let's take this full circle back to morality and actions. We have two options, and if you think that's a false dilemma, I welcome you to present a third. But either God exists or God does not exist. If God exists, then morality can be objective because morality would be based upon the character of God. And because God is a MGB, and we know (I'm taking this for granted) that attributes such as perfection are greater than non-perfection - we can know that morality is objective because it's based in the perfect character of God.

If God were MGB, how would you know unless you too were MGB? As the old saying goes; takes one to know one, but how would you know he were the maximally greatest being, rather than just greater than you? If you were to personally meet God and had the opportunity to learn everything you can about him, what system would you employ to verify that he is the MGB?

However, if God does not exist, then we can very easily say that morality is subjective. The reason being is that if God does not exist, then man becomes the measure of what's right and wrong, and no man has more inherent and innate authority over another man to dictate to them what is morally right and wrong.

Isn’t that how things seem in the real world?

Now, as far as testing that in the real world, I think we can see that humanity actually does testify for the notion of objective morals. I say this because I don't know of a culture that has ever existed that taught that virtues such as honesty, justice, and loyalty were vices to be avoided while vices such as envy, hatred, and slothfulness were virtues to be extolled.

Those terms you mentioned are up to interpretation (subjective) what one man calls justice, another will call cruel. What one man calls hatred, another will call honest. Often the same action will often be given different names and judged differently by different people.

We seem to have an innate understanding that it is always morally wrong for a 42 year old man to physically molest a 13 year old girl. We seem to have an innate understanding that it is always wrong for a person to murder another in cold blood.

We have that innate understanding NOW; but we didn’t always have that understanding. Remember; most historians believe Mary was only 12 years old when Jesus was born; whereas Joseph was at least 20. If the idea of girls being married off as soon as they get their period is objectively immoral today, then it had to be immoral years ago when people didn’t live as long as they do now, and had different standards than they have now.

 

[SPF]

Again; you're speaking of your concept of God. Now if you wish to speak of YOUR God, let me know because that is a different conversation than the one you started with when you spoke of “no particular religious view of God”. If you gonna move the goal posts, let me know so we can have an understanding during this discussion.

I'm not, I'm speaking philosophically, This is what I was referring to previously when I was taking for granted that you had some philosophical education, you clearly do not. And honestly, I'm not going to take the time to explain something as non-controversial as God being a MGB to you. Even Richard Dawkins wouldn't take issue with this understanding.

I agree with your objective definition, but not your subjective definition. There is always a standard for morality; without a standard, there is no morality! Now Subjective morality doesn’t claim a single moral standard; (everybody generally brings their own moral standard to the table for discussion) but just because there isn’t a single moral standard doesn’t mean no standard at all!

The point is that the standard, if it is not God, is subjective. Personally, I've always considered this kind of a "duh" statement. If man is the measure of morality, then it is subjective. If God exists, then morality is objective.

Now as far as having the ethical authority to tell someone an action is right or wrong, that’s what the discussion is about; if my subjective moral standard is a little different than yours, we have a discussion about our different moral standards, perhaps convincing one way or the other of a different point of view.

That's actually not what the discussion is about. Again, if there is no God, then there is no objective morality. I don't see that you're actually disagreeing with that.

If God were MGB, how would you know unless you too were MGB? As the old saying goes; takes one to know one, but how would you know he were the maximally greatest being, rather than just greater than you?

I'm not a cat, but I am able to recognize what a cat is. I don't need to be one to know one. And I'm not sure what the point of you saying this is and how it contributes to the discussion. If an entity appeared in the sky and claimed to be God, I would not know whether or not they were God or if there was a more powerful being in existence that was itself God and was just permitting this lesser being claim to be God. But I don't know what my limited knowledge has to do with whether or not God actually exists or not.

Those terms you mentioned are up to interpretation (subjective) what one man calls justice, another will call cruel. What one man calls hatred, another will call honest. Often the same action will often be given different names and judged differently by different people.

Would you please provide an example for me of a culture that has ever existed that taught that a virtue such as courage was actually a vice to be avoided, or that justice was a vice? And what culture has ever existed that believe cold blooded murder was a virtue and good? I don't know of any, do you?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, those are what caused WWII, what I was referring to was why the people allowed the Nazis to take over. If the people had still been influenced more by orthodox Christianity and believed in objective moral absolutes then I dont think that the Nazis would have been able to take over the government. They would have been mostly rejected and would have been more like the USA version of the Neo-Nazis, just a small extremist group. Germany probably still would have invaded other European countries to get their resources and improve their economy and take out their anger about Versailles. IOW some smaller scale version of WWII might would have still happened, but the Holocaust probably would not have happened because it would have been unthinkable because the society would have been more similar the US. Modern historians would never acknowledge this because they dont want to give biblical Christianity any credit for anything good.


ken: You are assuming they would behave according to what they believe. People act against their beliefs all the time. Often due to moral short comings, prejudices, and character flaws, people will often know right, yet still choose to do wrong.

Generally most people DO live according to what they believe is reality or according to their worldview. Not always of course and not perfectly, and then there are also people that live a lie. They will pretend to believe one worldview and yet deep down they dont believe it and under pressure will abandon it.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Opinion is the key word, but factually speaking (it is not an opinion) everybody knows that it is a scientific fact that suffering and pain is subjective. There is no objective test to determine levels of pain and suffering and whether it is always bad.

ken: Physical pain can be determined, and empirically verified.

Ok, explain how scientifically it can be determined that one person's headache is more painful than another person's.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And if God exists then His character is the objective moral standard for humans by definition, ie objectively. IOW it is not an opinion. But any moral system based on pain and suffering is subjective BY DEFINTION.

ken: IF God exist, (and that’s a big IF) the only way his character could be considered the objective moral standard for ALL of mankind is if ALL of mankind defines morality according to God’s moral character. A quick look into the real world, and you will see most people don’t even recognize the existence of this God let alone his moral character. So IF (again IF) most were wrong and this God did exist, by definition his character cannot be what human morality is based on

No, not if His creation consists of free will beings which is what humans are, and most of them hate their Creator (some of them subconsciously) and therefore do not want to live according to His standards.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am not saying that evolution passes judgement on it, according to science Nature and evolution which is part of nature, just ARE, there are no OUGHTS. But every biologist knows that pain and death is part of how evolution works.

ken: No its not. Evolution is about biological changes in species from one generation to the next. These changes don’t involve pain or death.

Answer this, if the ancestral species did not die out, would the new species still come into existence? If they did not and the new species would still appear then the planet would quickly become overcrowded and ALL life would die out and evolution would stop.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That is why you cannot say that pain and death are bad. They could just as easily be good or most likely there is neither good nor bad morally if Nature is all there is. And therefore there is nothing wrong with killing and eating humans. Or doing what Hitler did.

ken: To recognize evolution does not prevent anyone from judging good vs bad; one has nothing to do with the other.

How do you determine what is good and what is bad?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How do you know this?

ken: That is my personal judgment

Exactly, your personal subjective judgement. You dont know this in an objectively real sense. And this is true of the writer of the article you posted.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
What is a monster?

ken: One who kills innocent babies and claim they deserved it!

How do you know they are innocent? And what are they innocent of? Not doing things that you personally subjectively believe are wrong?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Natural selection kills babies all the time for NO REASON WHATSOEVER if there is no God.

ken: Organisms that act according to natural selection don’t have the mental capacity to be judged good or bad

So are you saying that humans operate outside of natural selection? I thought you believe that humans evolve too?

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not, I'm speaking philosophically, This is what I was referring to previously when I was taking for granted that you had some philosophical education, you clearly do not. And honestly, I'm not going to take the time to explain something as non-controversial as God being a MGB to you. Even Richard Dawkins wouldn't take issue with this understanding.

You said:

If God exists (not talking about any specific religious view of God)

Those were your exact words. There are people who worship nature, the Sun, even people who are as human as you or I. You can’t say “any version of God” then turn around and claim you are speaking philosophically of some God that meets a specific criteria like MGB, because there are people of all types of crazy religions who choose to call all types of ridicules things God. It appears you know little about other religions other than your own, so for the sake of clarity, hence forth I will assume you are speaking specifically about the God of the Bible when you say “God” fair enough?

As far as Richard Dawkins, I have no idea of why you would bring him into the conversation; to me his words carry no more weight than yours or anybody else’s, and I assume his words don’t carry any more weight with you than mine or anyone else’s either, so unless he enters the conversation and speaks for himself, perhaps it's better if we left him out.

The point is that the standard, if it is not God, is subjective. Personally, I've always considered this kind of a "duh" statement. If man is the measure of morality, then it is subjective. If God exists, then morality is objective.

What I consider a “duh” statement is that if God exists, and morality is objective, God is subject to morality as much as you and I; otherwise morality is subjective to the character/whims/word etc. of God.
Think of something objective like Math. If God said 1+1=3, God would be wrong, because 1+1=2 no matter who says differently; even God. So in order for morality to be objective, if “X” is objectively wrong, it will be wrong even if God said it were right. Do you agree? If not, tell me where I’ve gone wrong.

I'm not a cat, but I am able to recognize what a cat is. I don't need to be one to know one. And I'm not sure what the point of you saying this is and how it contributes to the discussion. If an entity appeared in the sky and claimed to be God, I would not know whether or not they were God or if there was a more powerful being in existence that was itself God and was just permitting this lesser being claim to be God. But I don't know what my limited knowledge has to do with whether or not God actually exists or not.

You’ve answered questions I did not ask, and neglected to answer the question I did ask. Let me try again; If God is perfect, or MGB, how do you know? What method do you employ to verify God is what you said he is?

Would you please provide an example for me of a culture that has ever existed that taught that a virtue such as courage was actually a vice to be avoided, or that justice was a vice?

Afghan children as young as 10 years old are brainwashed into believing suicide bombers are virtuous and are full of courage. I think we both can agree it is a vice to be avoided.

And what culture has ever existed that believe cold blooded murder was a virtue and good? I don't know of any, do you?

Nazi Germany.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, not if His creation consists of free will beings which is what humans are, and most of them hate their Creator (some of them subconsciously) and therefore do not want to live according to His standards.

Are you agreeing with me?

Answer this, if the ancestral species did not die out, would the new species still come into existence?

Yes they would

If they did not and the new species would still appear then the planet would quickly become overcrowded and ALL life would die out and evolution would stop.

Your scenario is not about evolution.

How do you determine what is good and what is bad?

Empathy, logic, reason, extenuating circumstances, and a host of other tools and factors.

Exactly, your personal subjective judgement. You dont know this in an objectively real sense. And this is true of the writer of the article you posted.

The article I posted was to only show that you don’t have to believe in God to believe morality is objective; yeah atheists can be wrong too!

How do you know they are innocent? And what are they innocent of? Not doing things that you personally subjectively believe are wrong?

Yes.

So are you saying that humans operate outside of natural selection? I thought you believe that humans evolve too?

You do know the difference between Evolution vs Natural Selection; do you?
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-evolution-and-natural-selection

 

[SPF]

What I consider a “duh” statement is that if God exists, and morality is objective, God is subject to morality as much as you and I; otherwise morality is subjective to the character/whims/word etc. of God.
Think of something objective like Math. If God said 1+1=3, God would be wrong, because 1+1=2 no matter who says differently; even God. So in order for morality to be objective, if “X” is objectively wrong, it will be wrong even if God said it were right. Do you agree? If not, tell me where I’ve gone wrong.

Correct, if God exists then morality is objective because th nature of God is perfect and immutable. Therefore, morality is objective and does not change.

You’re also correct that God could not say that 1+1=3. In the same way, God cannot create another God greater than Himself, God cannot create another non-contingent being.

If God is perfect, or MGB, how do you know? What method do you employ to verify God is what you said he is?

God, if He exists, is by definition a MGB. I can point you towards some entry level philosophy of religion books if you’re still not grasping that.

 

[Tayla]

I don't think there is any such thing as Good or Evil.

Of course there is.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am eagerly waiting for your evidence.
ken: Objective means based on fact, it is unbiased, and is uncolored by extenuating circumstances and personal preferences.

Subjective is the opposite; meaning extenuating circumstances, point of view, and personal biases are taken into consideration.

Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between

So lets apply these terms to morality; Is lying wrong? Well if it’s objectively wrong, that would mean you must tell the truth no matter what; even if it is 1932 in Germany and the Gestapo came knocking on your door asking if you had any Jews in the House, If you were hiding some the morally right thing to do would be to tell them the truth. I think it would be morally wrong to tell them the truth, and I suspect you would also.

As free will beings you are free to not believe that something is wrong even when it is objectively wrong and you will face the consequences/punishment for doing the wrong thing. No, I believe it would be morally wrong to lie about anything. But there are a multitude of other things you can do besides answering their question. You could shoot them in the head and that would be morally right or you could do many other things besides lying.

ken: If morality were subjective, it would mean you should take extenuating circumstances, point of view, and personal biases, into consideration before proclaim lying is wrong.

In other words, if “X” is objectively wrong, there will be no circumstances when “X” could be right. If you can come up with a scenario where “X” could be considered right, then morality is subjective; not objective.

Basically correct.

 

[Ken-1122]

As free will beings you are free to not believe that something is wrong even when it is objectively wrong and you will face the consequences/punishment for doing the wrong thing. No, I believe it would be morally wrong to lie about anything. But there are a multitude of other things you can do besides answering their question. You could shoot them in the head and that would be morally right or you could do many other things besides lying.

So lemme see if I've got this straight! If you lie to em, you'll burn in hell for that because lying is objectively wrong! But if you shoot them in the head and blow their brains out, well...... that's okay. You joking' right??? Bruh-man's got jokes! (LOL) No; all joking aside; ARE YOU SERIOUS???

 

[Skreeper]

As free will beings you are free to not believe that something is wrong even when it is objectively wrong and you will face the consequences/punishment for doing the wrong thing. No, I believe it would be morally wrong to lie about anything. But there are a multitude of other things you can do besides answering their question. You could shoot them in the head and that would be morally right or you could do many other things besides lying.

What's the point of free will then? When God only wants people to follow his commands then it is pretty stupid to introduce a system that gives people the ability to disobey these commands.

 

[Ken-1122]

Correct, if God exists then morality is objective because th nature of God is perfect and immutable. Therefore, morality is objective and does not change.

That’s not what I said. I said; If God exists AND morality is objective, God is subject to morality as much as you and I, otherwise morality is subjective to whatever God says. Now do you agree with that?

God, if He exists, is by definition a MGB. I can point you towards some entry level philosophy of religion books if you’re still not grasping that.

The only thing I’m trying to grasp is how do YOU verify your God is who people say he is. Now if you can’t answer that question, say so. If you don’t want to answer that question; say so, all that I ask is that you address the questions I ask; not something else, then we can move on from there.

 

[SPF]

That’s not what I said. I said; If God exists AND morality is objective, God is subject to morality as much as you and I, otherwise morality is subjective to whatever God says. Now do you agree with that?

saying God is subject to morality is borderline non-sensical. If God exists, objective morality exists because it stems from the very character of God. So you’re essentially saying that God is somehow subjective to His own character? I don’t think you understand what you’re saying.

The only thing I’m trying to grasp is how do YOU verify your God is who people say he is. Now if you can’t answer that question, say so. If you don’t want to answer that question; say so, all that I ask is that you address the questions I ask; not something else, then we can move on from there.

Im not sure why you’re attempting to verify that when I haven’t posited anything about my personal beliefs about God, I’m failing to see the relevance.

This topic is about the whether or not morality is/can be objective if God exists. And the answer to that is yes, if God exists then morality is objective.

I don’t understand why that is controversial for atheists. When I was an atheist I had no problem saying that because there was no God there was no objective morality. That makes sense. If God doesn’t exist, then man is the measure of what is right and wrong, and if man is the measure of what is right and wrong then morality is necessarily subjective because no man possesses more inherent authority than another man.

Morality can only be objective in a world where God exists.

 

[Ken-1122]

saying God is subject to morality is borderline non-sensical. If God exists, objective morality exists because it stems from the very character of God. So you’re essentially saying that God is somehow subjective to His own character? I don’t think you understand what you’re saying.

The only reason you say that is because somebody else told you, or you read it from a book that somebody else wrote. My question is; did you verify what someone told you, or what you read from that book was true? Or do you take all of this on blind faith. If you verified; how?

 

[SPF]

Again, I haven’t come into this discussion needing at any point to talk about my personal beliefs, and there’s no reason to run off topic.

If you don’t want to engage on the topic, or don’t have the education necessary to, then that’s perfectly fine.

So again, on topic, I will say that the OP is spot on in that without God morality is subjective. However, if God does exist then morality is objective because morality is based upon His character.

If you disagree with that, then say so and explain why.

 

[Ken-1122]

Again, I haven’t come into this discussion needing at any point to talk about my personal beliefs,

All you’ve done since you joined this discussion is talk about your personal beliefs.
*God is a maximally great being
*God possess the attributes of immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence -
*God is unchanging
*Morality stems from God’s character

These are some of your personal beliefs that you’ve brought into this discussion since you've come here.

and there’s no reason to run off topic.

If you don’t want to engage on the topic, or don’t have the education necessary to, then that’s perfectly fine.

Run off topic? You are the one who introduced your personal beliefs into this discussion, I’m just responding to what you introduced! If you consider this off topic and take issue with that, then perhaps you should have kept your personal beliefs to yourself instead of putting them out there for people like me to comment on.

So again, on topic, I will say that the OP is spot on in that without God morality is subjective. However, if God does exist then morality is objective because morality is based upon His character.

If you disagree with that, then say so and explain why.

I disagree. Even if God existed, morality is not based on his character; it’s based on the character of each person who holds a moral view.