problem of the problem of evil

[Azdgari]

Do you have a nature?

Whether or not it is fixed is irrelevant to what I said.  I never mentioned a time-span.  Your nature is evil.

Now, what can you offer as a counter-argument to that?

EDIT:  Come to think of it, the whole "nature" thing is a red herring.

Gill, Satan is good, by definition.  What would the proper line of argumentation be against that?

[Graybeard]

How can God be all-good and allow so much evil in the world?

IMO: Not a valid anti-God argument.

(1)   God's nature usually isn't determined by taking an inductive survey of perceived good/evil acts in the world.   God is good by definition.   Otherwise; an argument for Evil God could be made through induction.

I am afraid that this argument is deeply flawed. We do know the nature of God. God is not good by definition. This is a lie that weak, fluffy-bunny Christians like to believe – but it is neither true nor does this erroneous belief help them towards Salvation. God tells us that he is
(i)   Jealous
(ii)   Creates evil (i.e. is the source of evil)
(iii)   Violent
(iv)   Vengeful
(v)   Threatening
(vi)   A lover of war
(vii)   Creates the blind, deaf and lame.
(viii)   Causes earthquakes, droughts, disease, rivers run red with blood, kills the firstborn, etc, etc.

According to the Bible, 613 commandments were given by a god on Mount Sinai, (Ex:19 - 32) That god could have been Yahweh or could have been El, the whole of the Elohim or Baal Haddad. Most Christians say there are 10 Commandments but would fail to name some of them.

We can assume that contravening any of the 613 is considered a sin. The NT adds a few more sins and two (?) more commandments.

Sins and evil must go hand in hand. So by seeing what God says he is and what he doesn’t like (cloth of mixed fibre, bastards, people with broken noses, etc) we can see what he does like and what sort of a being he is.

(2) Good/Evil would be illusory in a purely naturalistic world

Do you know the meaning of “illusory”? Do you mean “relative”?

So then to even ask the question of 'why is there evil' you would have to presuppose a moral conscience.

You are getting yourself in too deeply: “evil” is what people don’t like – there are grades of evil. 

But such a conscience could actually be used to argue for an ability endowed by a moral creator.

Not really. Nothing is added by adding a god. As far as I am aware my dog has no god, yet, in reacting with people and other animals she knows what is good and what is bad for her.

It would be  more difficult to argue that a purely physical system would produce a moral dimension of thought.

That is simply not so. Laws, morals, rules, manners, politeness, are all part of the same behaviour pattern. They are invented and agreed by society for mutual benefit. There is simply no need for a god.

Conclusions:
1.   The premise that God is all-good, is simply not true. If this is not true, then nothing that follows from it can be true.
2.   If there is an argument that includes a deity, that argument is either improved or unchanged when omitting that deity.[1]

1.

You can try this for yourself, e.g. A: “The ship is sunk! Only God can save us!” B: “The ship is sunk! Another ship or helicopter can save us, also if we are not far from land, we can save ourselves.” A: “The mother died in the car crash but God saved the baby.” B: “The mother died in the accident but the baby was saved by being on the side further from the impact and being inside an approved baby carrier.” (This is a strange one… why does no one say, “God killed the mother but saved the baby”?)

[Truth OT]

Back in my Christian days I often made the point that God was the creator and sustainer of the universe who at times intervened in certain affairs within man's universe, but that God was not a part of or reliant upon the universe for His existence and therefore He was not possible to fully define by any means this universe could offer without God's direct assistance. A bit of special pleading was needed to make such an assertation.

According to my understanding, because God was above this plain of existence, He could not be judged by us as to whether He was good, evil, or whatever by any means other than whether or not He did what He said He would do. In other words, as long as God was honest, God was good. Evil could be as rampant as energy and that would have no bearing in my mind on God's goodness. I had to make God virtually untouchable in order to make sense of Him existing as God and as a good God. My goalposts were in constant motion and for the longest time I could even see it.

My definitions and understand of good and evil were totally out of whack as well. To me, good/moral was totally tied to the directives, or more specifically my understanding/interpretation of the supposed directives of my God. I had done as I was taught to do by giving all power to the God concept I believed in as opposed to being rational in my understanding of morality. Rationally, morality is subjective, but I didn't see it that way as I made my understanding of God objective for no apparent reason totally missing the fact that by making good/evil something that derived from my God, they were still subjective concepts but rather than being subject to mankind and on a plane that could allow for them to be adjusted as needed, I had placed them in the realm of the undefinable, immutible, irrational, and untouchable.

Having come to realize what I have recently been able to see more clearly I now understand that the problem of evil totally wrecked my understanding of God. In order to explain evil, one must de-god God. There can be no omnimax holy and righteous deity and evil simultaneously. The two concepts simply do not fit. Because of that, God must be stripped of some of His presupposed omni-hood. The more stripping one has to do, the less "Godly" God becomes and one is forced to see that the idea of there being an all powerful God is but wishful and not well thought out thinking.

So, if there was/is a sentient being that was the catalyst for the universe's creation, we have no reason reason to believe it was an all powerful being. We can't even know if it initiated the universe's birth on purpose. Therefore, coming up with dogma surrounding this creator that may or may not even exist is foolish, presumptive, and arrogant. Stop it!

[Gill]

How can God be all-good and allow so much evil in the world?

IMO: Not a valid anti-God argument.

(1)   God's nature usually isn't determined by taking an inductive survey of perceived good/evil acts in the world.   God is good by definition.   Otherwise; an argument for Evil God could be made through induction.

I am afraid that this argument is deeply flawed. We do know the nature of God. God is not good by definition. This is a lie that weak, fluffy-bunny Christians like to believe – but it is neither true nor does this erroneous belief help them towards Salvation. God tells us that he is
(i)   Jealous
(ii)   Creates evil (i.e. is the source of evil)
(iii)   Violent.....

I don't follow the Bible.

(2) Good/Evil would be illusory in a purely naturalistic world

Do you know the meaning of “illusory”? Do you mean “relative”?

I meant 'illusory' in the sense that there wouldn't be objective good/evil.

Not really. Nothing is added by adding a god. As far as I am aware my dog has no god, yet, in reacting with people and other animals she knows what is good and what is bad for her.

Not saying God is necessary for people to act good.  I'm saying as a foundation for objective goods/evils.

[Azdgari]

It doesn't do that, either, Gill.  Because a human still has to define the god as good or evil.

[Graybeard]

I don't follow the Bible.

Any particular book? The Torah? It's probably in there too.

If you don't follow any religion, how do you know anything about your god?

(2) Good/Evil would be illusory in a purely naturalistic world

Do you know the meaning of “illusory”? Do you mean “relative”?

I meant 'illusory' in the sense that there wouldn't be objective good/evil.

There is no objective good/evil - it is all relative. You may think that I am evil to tell the police about your crimes, the police may think I am good to do that.

Not saying God is necessary for people to act good.  I'm saying as a foundation for objective goods/evils.

Good and evil cannot be objective.

[Gill]

Do you have a nature?

Whether or not it is fixed is irrelevant to what I said.  I never mentioned a time-span.  Your nature is evil.

Now, what can you offer as a counter-argument to that?

EDIT:  Come to think of it, the whole "nature" thing is a red herring.

Gill, Satan is good, by definition.  What would the proper line of argumentation be against that?

I don't think it's valid to say I have an evil or even good nature.   I'm free to do good or evil acts.  So then evil/good would be descriptive of acts not nature.  The descriptions of such acts are being measured against what standard?  If we say Satan is all-good;  then a good act of mine would yes, be a 'Satan-like' act.   It's just providing some fixed reference point for good/evil acts.  All I'm sayin....
   

[Gill]

I don't follow the Bible.

Any particular book? The Torah? It's probably in there too.

If you don't follow any religion, how do you know anything about your god?

(2) Good/Evil would be illusory in a purely naturalistic world

Do you know the meaning of “illusory”? Do you mean “relative”?

I meant 'illusory' in the sense that there wouldn't be objective good/evil.

There is no objective good/evil - it is all relative. You may think that I am evil to tell the police about your crimes, the police may think I am good to do that.

Not saying God is necessary for people to act good.  I'm saying as a foundation for objective goods/evils.

Good and evil cannot be objective.

I think there are objective good/evil acts.

[Graybeard]

I think there are objective good/evil acts.

Any examples?

[Gill]

I think there are objective good/evil acts.

Any examples?

 People don't arbitrarily decide one day that they're going to believe murder is just okay, then the next day wrong, correct?  So then it would seem that people are discovering moral truths about reality as they learn.   People may disagree in their individual interpretations; but I think an actual truth is still existent independent of their individual variances in interpretation.

[Graybeard]

People don't arbitrarily decide one day that they're going to believe murder is just okay, then the next day wrong, correct?

No, incorrect. Think of the professional killer... he shoots people to order, he is paid well, he lives well. Then someone comes and kills his son. He may think that his job is fine but he would think that the killing of his son is wrong.

I think an actual truth is still existent independent of their individual variances in interpretation.

(i) Any examples?
(ii) Where would that truth be found?

[Gill]

People don't arbitrarily decide one day that they're going to believe murder is just okay, then the next day wrong, correct?

No, incorrect. Think of the professional killer... he shoots people to order, he is paid well, he lives well. Then someone comes and kills his son. He may think that his job is fine but he would think that the killing of his son is wrong.

I think an actual truth is still existent independent of their individual variances in interpretation.

(i) Any examples?
(ii) Where would that truth be found?

It's found by people living life and discovering it. 

[Azdgari]

I don't think it's valid to say I have an evil or even good nature.   I'm free to do good or evil acts.  So then evil/good would be descriptive of acts not nature.

I never mentioned acts.  I only mentioned your nature.  You can't use your acts to judge your nature to be good, evil, or both/neither.  Not if, as Craig says, you can't use God's acts to judge its nature to be good, evil, or both/neither.

Your acts are irrelevant.  Your nature is evil by definition, not because of your acts.  Try again.

The descriptions of such acts are being measured against what standard?  If we say Satan is all-good;  then a good act of mine would yes, be a 'Satan-like' act.   It's just providing some fixed reference point for good/evil acts.  All I'm sayin....

If it depends on who we say is good, then that is a subjective selection of a standard.  You might just as well assign your own values as that standard.  This is no more subjective than assigning God's values as a standard.

You would need an objective standard for selecting a standard, for it to be objective.  And that can't be the standard you're selecting, for obvious reasons.

[12 Monkeys]

So what do you base this goodness on? you dont use the OT or NT as a base....what are your paramaters? are you a believer yourself?

I guess ppl could call me deist.   The goodness would be a definitional thing.   'God' would be defined as a non-human mind which is absolutely and actually good from which to measure relative goodness as interpreted by individual minds.

how do you arrive at the definition of good or goodness? again I ask what other than your "feelings" lead you to this conclusion? Is it because you live in a country where you can buy anything you need at your fingertips? I of course mean food and water readilly available. Someone on the other side of the earth sees a different god than the one you see,they see famine,drought,war,starvation......little or no bounty......so where do you go from here?

I already said; it's based on definition; not by taking an inductive survey of suffering in the world.

Where did you get this definition? this has nothing to do with suffering......how did you arrive at the definition?

[Azdgari]

^^ He's since admitted that the definition is up to humans.

[Gill]

I don't think it's valid to say I have an evil or even good nature.   I'm free to do good or evil acts.  So then evil/good would be descriptive of acts not nature.

I never mentioned acts.  I only mentioned your nature.  You can't use your acts to judge your nature to be good, evil, or both/neither.  Not if, as Craig says, you can't use God's acts to judge its nature to be good, evil, or both/neither.

Your acts are irrelevant.  Your nature is evil by definition, not because of your acts.  Try again.

You can define my nature as evil if you want;  but then you'd be setting me as the absolute standard of what evil means.    And so I don't see the point in doing that...

The descriptions of such acts are being measured against what standard?  If we say Satan is all-good;  then a good act of mine would yes, be a 'Satan-like' act.   It's just providing some fixed reference point for good/evil acts.  All I'm sayin....

If it depends on who we say is good, then that is a subjective selection of a standard.  You might just as well assign your own values as that standard.  This is no more subjective than assigning God's values as a standard.

You would need an objective standard for selecting a standard, for it to be objective.  And that can't be the standard you're selecting, for obvious reasons.

I don't disagree that how each person interprets morals will be subjective;  I'm saying, what are they drawing these interpretations from?  If it's an objective source, it would have to be an external source, would it not?  Well, that external thing by definition could not be an inanimate object such as a rock since such things have no moral dimension of thought.   The only other option would seem to be a human-independent mind as the standard.  Call it 'God',  or 'The Source'.   Doesn't matter what it's called obviously, but God is usually chosen by definition.   (course, some ppl may argue the source is just in ppls own minds; but I disagree and think that's an oversimplification.....)

[Gill]

So what do you base this goodness on? you dont use the OT or NT as a base....what are your paramaters? are you a believer yourself?

I guess ppl could call me deist.   The goodness would be a definitional thing.   'God' would be defined as a non-human mind which is absolutely and actually good from which to measure relative goodness as interpreted by individual minds.

how do you arrive at the definition of good or goodness? again I ask what other than your "feelings" lead you to this conclusion? Is it because you live in a country where you can buy anything you need at your fingertips? I of course mean food and water readilly available. Someone on the other side of the earth sees a different god than the one you see,they see famine,drought,war,starvation......little or no bounty......so where do you go from here?

I already said; it's based on definition; not by taking an inductive survey of suffering in the world.

Where did you get this definition? this has nothing to do with suffering......how did you arrive at the definition?

One way is from my belief in moral realism.    If moral realism is true; then what is the objective standard of moral goodness?...,  we could define that standard as 'God',  by tradition, although even the word 'Source' I like better but would probably confuse ppl.

[Azdgari]

You can define my nature as evil if you want;  but then you'd be setting me as the absolute standard of what evil means.    And so I don't see the point in doing that...

Let's substitute some words here, and you should see my point...

You can define my nature as good if you want;  but then you'd be setting me as the absolute standard of what good means.    And so I don't see the point in doing that...

This is precisely as valid as what you wrote.  Which is to say, quite valid indeed.

I don't disagree that how each person interprets morals will be subjective;  I'm saying, what are they drawing these interpretations from?  If it's an objective source, it would have to be an external source, would it not?

I don't know.  No concept of objective morality has ever been coherently described to me.  They all end up being either describing subjective morality, or being incoherent, upon closer inspection.

Well, that external thing by definition could not be an inanimate object such as a rock since such things have no moral dimension of thought.   The only other option would seem to be a human-independent mind as the standard.  Call it 'God',  or 'The Source'.   Doesn't matter what it's called obviously, but God is usually chosen by definition.   (course, some ppl may argue the source is just in ppls own minds; but I disagree and think that's an oversimplification.....)

Why is its humanity relevant?  Does its ability to breed with humans to produce viable offspring make a difference?  Anyway, the thing's values - while an external standard - would still be subjective.  For what would its standard of morality be?  Where is it grounded?

Hell, take humans out of the equation for a second.  Let's talk about God, alone.  Pre-human God, as it were.  It has moral values.  Are they objective?  If so, then why?

[JeffPT]

People don't arbitrarily decide one day that they're going to believe murder is just okay, then the next day wrong, correct?

If you are arguing that moral viewpoints can't change on a regular basis, then that would be easy to prove false.  Of course they change.  They change all the time. 

  So then it would seem that people are discovering moral truths about reality as they learn. 

Without knowing what the moral truths really are in the first place, how would you know that you are discovering a moral truth versus going in the wrong direction?  How would you know?  I mean, can you say that a moderate Christian who suddenly loses his mind and becomes an member of the WBC is 'discovering a moral truth'? 

People may disagree in their individual interpretations; but I think an actual truth is still existent independent of their individual variances in interpretation.

Aside from wishful thinking, what reason do you have for thinking this way? 

[Gill]

People don't arbitrarily decide one day that they're going to believe murder is just okay, then the next day wrong, correct?

If you are arguing that moral viewpoints can't change on a regular basis, then that would be easy to prove false.  Of course they change.  They change all the time. 

 I'm saying people have reasons behind their viewpoints.   They don't just randomly select them from a bucket of papers with beliefs written on them.

  So then it would seem that people are discovering moral truths about reality as they learn. 

Without knowing what the moral truths really are in the first place, how would you know that you are discovering a moral truth versus going in the wrong direction?  How would you know?  I mean, can you say that a moderate Christian who suddenly loses his mind and becomes an member of the WBC is 'discovering a moral truth'? 

Do you have any moral beliefs?  If so, then you must believe there's some way to know.   The idea extreme skepticism that morals can't be known isn't consistent with how people live.

People may disagree in their individual interpretations; but I think an actual truth is still existent independent of their individual variances in interpretation.

Aside from wishful thinking, what reason do you have for thinking this way?

Because moral relativism is self-refuting.   

[Gill]

You can define my nature as evil if you want;  but then you'd be setting me as the absolute standard of what evil means.    And so I don't see the point in doing that...

Let's substitute some words here, and you should see my point...

You can define my nature as good if you want;  but then you'd be setting me as the absolute standard of what good means.    And so I don't see the point in doing that...

This is precisely as valid as what you wrote.  Which is to say, quite valid indeed.

I don't disagree that it's valid logically.   But I see no reason to make me the absolute standard of good or evil.   

Well, that external thing by definition could not be an inanimate object such as a rock since such things have no moral dimension of thought.   The only other option would seem to be a human-independent mind as the standard.  Call it 'God',  or 'The Source'.   Doesn't matter what it's called obviously, but God is usually chosen by definition.   (course, some ppl may argue the source is just in ppls own minds; but I disagree and think that's an oversimplification.....)

Why is its humanity relevant?  Does its ability to breed with humans to produce viable offspring make a difference?  Anyway, the thing's values - while an external standard - would still be subjective.  For what would its standard of morality be?  Where is it grounded?

Hell, take humans out of the equation for a second.  Let's talk about God, alone.  Pre-human God, as it were.  It has moral values.  Are they objective?  If so, then why?

Well we say that certain physical measurements of the world are objective since they don't change based on who's doing the measuring; so drawing from that idea, I don't see why it wouldn't be logically possible that a moral standard also exists; although of course it wouldn't be as simple to discover as something like a physical measurement.   

[Azdgari]

I don't disagree that it's valid logically.   But I see no reason to make me the absolute standard of good or evil.

I'm not suggesting we do.  I'm saying that it makes almost as much sense to assign "God" that role, as it does to assign you that role.  In either case, the preference of standard is a subjective one.  Picking "God" does not give you an objective standard, because nothing objective points to that standard as the "right" choice.  The choice is merely a reflection of your own subjective opinions.  No less than if you chose your own values to use as a foundation, or I chose yours, or you chose mine, or we chose Genghis Khan's or Stalin's or Gandhi's.

Well we say that certain physical measurements of the world are objective since they don't change based on who's doing the measuring; so drawing from that idea, I don't see why it wouldn't be logically possible that a moral standard also exists; although of course it wouldn't be as simple to discover as something like a physical measurement.

My values don't change based on who is doing the measurement.[1]  Your values don't change based on who is measuring them.  Same with a god's, for that matter.  They do all have an objective state.

As for measuring them as unrelated to minds, objective in themselves...what would a world with murder being objectively good look like, that's different from a world with murder being objectively evil?


Also:

Because moral relativism is self-refuting.

Some variations are.  Most famously, the position that morality is subjective and therefore it is objectively wrong to judge others' morals as right or wrong, is self-refuting.  This is called "normative relativism" and it is by no means a requirement of the philosophy.

1.	Assuming I'm being honest to people who ask; if not then the measurement is in error, rather than measuring a genuine different value.

[12 Monkeys]

Do you have a nature?

Whether or not it is fixed is irrelevant to what I said.  I never mentioned a time-span.  Your nature is evil.

Now, what can you offer as a counter-argument to that?

EDIT:  Come to think of it, the whole "nature" thing is a red herring.

Gill, Satan is good, by definition.  What would the proper line of argumentation be against that?

I don't think it's valid to say I have an evil or even good nature.   I'm free to do good or evil acts.  So then evil/good would be descriptive of acts not nature.  The descriptions of such acts are being measured against what standard?  If we say Satan is all-good;  then a good act of mine would yes, be a 'Satan-like' act.   It's just providing some fixed reference point for good/evil acts.  All I'm sayin....
 

God has done more Satan like acts,than say Bob or maybe....ummm Satan. Other than following God's orders in the book of Job can you prove with concrete evidence an act of evil by Satan......as you say you do not use the Bible so good luck.

[12 Monkeys]

So what do you base this goodness on? you dont use the OT or NT as a base....what are your paramaters? are you a believer yourself?

I guess ppl could call me deist.   The goodness would be a definitional thing.   'God' would be defined as a non-human mind which is absolutely and actually good from which to measure relative goodness as interpreted by individual minds.

how do you arrive at the definition of good or goodness? again I ask what other than your "feelings" lead you to this conclusion? Is it because you live in a country where you can buy anything you need at your fingertips? I of course mean food and water readilly available. Someone on the other side of the earth sees a different god than the one you see,they see famine,drought,war,starvation......little or no bounty......so where do you go from here?

I already said; it's based on definition; not by taking an inductive survey of suffering in the world.

Where did you get this definition? this has nothing to do with suffering......how did you arrive at the definition?

One way is from my belief in moral realism.    If moral realism is true; then what is the objective standard of moral goodness?...,  we could define that standard as 'God',  by tradition, although even the word 'Source' I like better but would probably confuse ppl.

See I am an Aboriginal person from Haida Gwaii (near Alaska in the North Pacific)......where did our "moral standards" come from?.....when the God-botherers came around in the late 1700's they murdred 90% of the population.......now I am guessing these were not true believers right?  the crusades,spanish inquisition.......many other murderous rampages....none of these were true believers either right?

[JeffPT]

I'm saying people have reasons behind their viewpoints.   They don't just randomly select them from a bucket of papers with beliefs written on them.

Yes and they are specific to the individual.  Much like our tastes in wine, women and song.  There are reasons for our viewpoints on those as well, and we don't need an objective viewpoint to draw from in order to understand them. 

Without knowing what the moral truths really are in the first place, how would you know that you are discovering a moral truth versus going in the wrong direction?  How would you know?  I mean, can you say that a moderate Christian who suddenly loses his mind and becomes an member of the WBC is 'discovering a moral truth'? 

Do you have any moral beliefs?  If so, then you must believe there's some way to know.   The idea extreme skepticism that morals can't be known isn't consistent with how people live.

You didn't answer my question.  How would you know that you've found a 'moral truth' or that you've simply gone in the wrong direction?

I have moral beliefs.  Example :  I think murder is wrong in most circumstances.  I also have taste in music.  For example : I think 80's hair band music is awesome.  Favorite colors.  For example : I like green.   What is the fundamental difference that makes you say the first is grounded in an objective authority, whereas the others are not?   

Because moral relativism is self-refuting.   

Rubbish.  No it's not.  It functions subjectively, you can explain it subjectively, you can see it occurring subjectively.  Get used to it, there is no absolute morality.  Sorry. 

[Gill]

Because moral relativism is self-refuting.   

Rubbish.  No it's not.  It functions subjectively, you can explain it subjectively, you can see it occurring subjectively.  Get used to it, there is no absolute morality.  Sorry.

It is self-refuting since it says one's moral beliefs are based on the culture they were raised in.   Well then; one could argue that someone who believes that morals are relative is based on their cultural upbringing.   

To even say 'morals aren't objective' is an objective claim of truth, right?  Well then based on what?

[One Above All]

It is self-refuting since it says one's moral beliefs are based on the culture they were raised in.   Well then; one could argue that someone who believes that morals are relative is based on their cultural upbringing.

"Morality is subjective" is not a subjective statement. It is objectively true.

To even say 'morals aren't objective' is an objective claim of truth, right?  Well then based on what?

Based on several things that I'm sure other people have pointed out to you. It is an objective statement, not regarding the morality of a specific action, but morality itself.

[Gill]

So what do you base this goodness on? you dont use the OT or NT as a base....what are your paramaters? are you a believer yourself?

I guess ppl could call me deist.   The goodness would be a definitional thing.   'God' would be defined as a non-human mind which is absolutely and actually good from which to measure relative goodness as interpreted by individual minds.

how do you arrive at the definition of good or goodness? again I ask what other than your "feelings" lead you to this conclusion? Is it because you live in a country where you can buy anything you need at your fingertips? I of course mean food and water readilly available. Someone on the other side of the earth sees a different god than the one you see,they see famine,drought,war,starvation......little or no bounty......so where do you go from here?

I already said; it's based on definition; not by taking an inductive survey of suffering in the world.

Where did you get this definition? this has nothing to do with suffering......how did you arrive at the definition?

One way is from my belief in moral realism.    If moral realism is true; then what is the objective standard of moral goodness?...,  we could define that standard as 'God',  by tradition, although even the word 'Source' I like better but would probably confuse ppl.

See I am an Aboriginal person from Haida Gwaii (near Alaska in the North Pacific)......where did our "moral standards" come from?.....when the God-botherers came around in the late 1700's they murdred 90% of the population.......now I am guessing these were not true believers right?  the crusades,spanish inquisition.......many other murderous rampages....none of these were true believers either right?

???  If you believe morals are relative, then why would you ever think you have a real reason to complain about 'wrongs' in the world?  That's 'just your opinion',  like taste in music, as some seem to think....

[Gill]

You didn't answer my question.  How would you know that you've found a 'moral truth' or that you've simply gone in the wrong direction?

I have moral beliefs.  Example :  I think murder is wrong in most circumstances.  I also have taste in music.  For example : I think 80's hair band music is awesome.  Favorite colors.  For example : I like green.   What is the fundamental difference that makes you say the first is grounded in an objective authority, whereas the others are not?   

I don't have to know exactly if I've found a moral truth to know that because I have the awareness of there being a right/wrong action in situations; this implies that there actually is a right/wrong action to be found.   Unless, people want to argue that this sense is simply illusory; well then, I say why trust any of our internal senses?  That skepticism is self-refuting.