First, I don’t think most people have an issue with assuming objective moral values exist.
You think wrong. Aside from the idea being patently ridiculous I have a huge problem with it, because it means that something else is dictating what my own views should be to me. I have a big problem with something else forcing me to think in a certain way. Especially when that something is clearly acting in it's own interests that are unknown to me. I'm not a big fan or tyranny.
Acts like the Holocaust or torturing babies is recognized as objectively wrong beyond all opinion or norms.
No they aren't. Otherwise they would have been recognized as wrong by the people that did them. If morals were objective then everybody everywhere would agree they were wrong. They might still violate the morals, but they would know that what they were doing was wrong. The Nazis were convinced that what they were doing was the right thing. Just as other similiar groups have done throughout history. The problem is that they believed they had god on their side too. That's the thing with people who believe in objective morals, there's no room left for changing them if it turns out they don't work. If you believe that your morals are absolute then there's little to stop you going to extreme lengths in their name. Do I need to point out the entire very long and bloody history of your own faith to show you that?
Secondly, and closely related, moral values are perceived just as the physical world is. Just as through sensory experience we perceive the existence of the physical world, our moral experience allows us to perceive the existence of moral values. It should also be noted that neither the existence of the physical world nor moral values are completely provable since we cannot step outside own experiences to verify either’s existence. It makes no more sense to deny the existence of the physical world than it does to deny the existence of moral values.
However we perceive the physical world through our own subjective experiences. That's why we invented science and logic, to help remove the limitations of our subjective senses and enable us to gain objective information that doesn't change with the person looking at it. Your argument supports subjectivity, not objectivty. As denying morals, that's a Strawman. No one has denied morals. It's your unfounded and unrealistic claim of objectivity that is being denied.
I have not made the assumption that objective moral values come from God. Having ruled out other viable options, I concluded that God is remains a plausible foundation.
No, you have not ruled out any other viable options. Which is what I pointed out to you. Or rather you have, but you have done so arbitrarily and without providing a valid reason. Following your logic again, you ruled out everything but a supernatural cause. That does not necessarily equate to god. Simply a supernatural cause. You simply decided that it for some reason must be a god if it is supernatural.
I have simply argued that moral values are most plausibly found in a supernatural being commonly referred to as God.
An argument which you still have not actually managed to support. So far your argument is nothing but assertions built upon arbitrarily ruling out all other possible options and declaring god to be the most likely.
I have not intentionally tried to exclude other possible source of moral values. As for your two possible candidates, moral values that simply just exist is how I would define existing abstractly, beyond physical or material world. This I have ruled it out as it does not provide the obligating factor necessary to compel moral duties.
Which has nothing to do with whether they exist, or whether they are objective. Again, as I said you are ruling things out for no reason, or more precisely the wrong reason. This is my point, your argument does not care about reality, it is based on what you want reality to be. You want there to be an obligating factor, so you rule out abstract morals because there is no such thing if they exist. However that does not mean that they don't exist as an abstract. Just that you don't like what they mean. This is why your argument cannot support itself. Because it's based not on what it, but on what you want.
As for constants in nature, if you are able to discover a moral framework from natural laws, I would like to hear it.
Evolution. Morals have evolved as survival mechanism for the betterment of a species. A species that works well together and helps one another has better survival chances than a species where everyone kills one another. This is a very simplified version of the concept of course, since it isn't really the point here. If you want more elaboration your can just google evolution of morality. But these form the basis of our modern morality.
By definition, God is a perfect being, therefore any changes would mean he was not perfect to begin with.
Agreed, but it dodges the point. God has changed over time, repeatedly.
Ancient civilizations thought that child sacrifices were a good thing. So long as such actions are acceptable to a given society, this makes child sacrifice ok? I think this conclusion goes against the moral perception of most people.
It does now
. However it didn't then. If order for your position to work it would have had to be equally wrong to them as well. But it wasn't. It was right to them because they decided that it was right. It was what their god (who they also believed gave them an objective set of morals) told them to do. In our modern day we believe different so we don't view it as a good thing to do. It works rather simply that way, doesn't it?
I’m not sure what argument you are using to back up this claim. I fail to see how objectivity implies universal consensus. The world is objectively round yet that has not always been the consensus.
That's because people did not always have the information to know that it was round. However that we have the information no one can dispute it, unless they willfully choose to ignore such a thing. Morals should be the same way if you are correct. If morals are objective then everyone should be able to look at them and immediately see that they're right when shown the evidence. Some still may choose to break the morals. But the fact that they are right and the evidence for them should be self-evident. This is not what happens however.
I believe I am using the common definition of objective. Something that is objective is exists independently of human opinion or perception. Therefore, objective moral values exist independently of human thought or perception. If moral values and duties originate in the nature of God, then they exist outside of human thought and are consequently objective.
No, you're not. Objective is not independant of human thought or perception. It is independant of conscious
thought or perception. All conscious thought, invluding gods. That's why I told you before that your argument is redefining the word. If morality comes from god it cannot be objective. It is entirely subjective because the morals are dependant on what god wanted them to be. Also in order for morals to be objective it would mean that god is subject to them as well. So when god tells people to kill, that is just as evil for him as when humans do it. You can't get around the horrible things god does by claiming that he had some better purpose or that he had the right to do it as a god (which you have not said, of course, but is the common Christian claim).
Your moral view simply replaces deciding on your own sense of right and wrong, with accepting what someone else (in this case god) tells you is right and wrong. This is the flaw with religious morals, they aren't really morals. Theists aren't moral people in a truly meaningful sense. They're obedient
. The theistic worldview is not one where you create your own values based on your own opinions, experiences in life, and personal values. It's one where you're handed down a set of prescribed behaviours from on high and patted on the head when you do as you're told and taken over the knee and spanked when you do bad.
Unless the god that you are suggesting is incapable of consious thought, then his morals cannot be objective.
To answer briefly, once again, God, by definition, is perfect in nature, therefore, any commands from God would also be perfect, particularly within the context of when the commands where given. It seems reasonable that if we know moral values come from God, that those commands should be preferable to those from man.
This assumes that the perfect commands are in our best interest. As I said, we don't know why god does what he does. There is no guarantee that what he wants is what's best for us. Also, if god were perfect then he would communicate to us in a perfect way. So we go back to the previously mentioned flaws of there being different morals for different people at different time periods.
Most importantly however, this assumes that humans want perfection handed to them. Or want perfection at all. I certainly don't. What would be the point in perfection if I just get it given to me. It's much more interesting to work to improve things.
The problem is that theists are essentially lazy. They don't want to have to think about morals, they don't want to have to answer the big questions like where we come from, they want all of reality in a nice,easily digestible package that they can use to fit into every aspect of their life when they need it. Which is fine to an extent, many people have other things to do that are important such as raising their kids. However being too lazy to think about these things or find out answers on your own is not an excuse to just sit around make things up. Reality is harsh, it is dirty and complicated and involves a lot of serious work to understand it.