What I am demonstrating is a clear logical flaw in there NOT being an objective morality.
You might think that's what you're demonstrating, but you're wrong about it. What you
might be demonstrating is that you don't like the implication of there being no objective morality. That remains to be seen. But no, you are not demonstrating that there is a logical flaw in there not being an objective morality. That's simply an incorrect statement.
Does someone have somekind of answer for that, all I have done is shown that a subjective morality makes no logical sense.
I haven't seen you do that at all. It makes 100% perfect logical sense. It explains how the world actually works and incorporates all the facts, leaving none out.
So you must demonstrate that as flawed logic, accept the existence of an objective morality, or claim there is no morality that coincides with a logical universe.
No, we don't. You summed it up completely in one simple sentence when you said, "What is moral is purely based on people's opinions of what is moral". Thus it's an individual thing. Stop there. There is no logical contradiction. It explains everything in great detail. What does that NOT explain to you?
But lets break it down a bit more so you get it.
Here is what you posted.
You see though in there itself lies the problem. What your claiming is that what is moral is purely based on people's opinions of what is moral. So then the only moral you could logically have is to follow the morals of the majority. Which of course is in and of itself parodoxial because the Moral of the majority contradicts that Moral of follow the leader in the first place. And even if it the majority followed the only logical moral of following everyone elses, there wouldn't be any to follow. Leaving the idea moot.
When you say, 'the only moral you could logically have is to follow the morals of the majority", you've already gone and dismissed what you said we're claiming in the previous sentence. Morality is assessed at the individual level, not the majority. It is logical to follow one's own moral code, is it not? If the majority of the people think it's right to keep homosexuals from marrying, and they make laws around that, that doesn't change
my opinion of it. I can still disagree with that. In the exact same way, if the majority of the people think that killing people is a good thing, I can disagree with that too. And if the majority of people think that killing people is a bad thing, I can also disagree with that. I form my own opinions, and so does every single other person in the world (unless you're heavily religious and have had your opinions force fed to you). I do believe that the society we live in has a large impact on our morality, but my opinions are still mine. A creator being is not required to understand how that all works in our reality.
When most people agree on a position, which happens a lot, we make laws around it. That's how the whole thing works.
If you want to murder someone, you are free to do so are you not? Just think about it... If you wanted to go murder someone in your house right now, could you? Of course you
could. Who's stopping you? God? LOL! No he's not. You really do have the freedom to murder, and the only thing you have to fear is the law, retribution from the family or loved ones of those you murder, and how it's going to make you feel after you do it. That is a fact, and if you don't like it, that's too bad for you. Facts don't care about our opinions all that much. You can either embrace that fact and take some personal responsibility to do what you think is right, or you can cry about it and try to claim that an invisible sky man tells us what's right and wrong. The big question is... Do you want to murder? No? Good. Join the club. The very idea of taking someone's life sits poorly with me. I have no desire to do that. Most humans feel the same way, don't you think? And we act on the things we feel strongly about, don't we?
There is no 'objective good', nor is there 'objective bad' in the sense you're using, and thus there need not be any sort of all knowing creator. Good and bad are processed by the individual. Laws are made by individuals who share lots of opinions about what is good and what is bad. Can you think of any situation where that's not the case? If I murder someone, could you not go from person to person, over the entire world, and get their opinion on it? Do you think they would all agree? Do you think there MUST be an ultimate judge of that, or can you actually fathom that there doesn't HAVE to be an ultimate judge in order to understand how it works in reality down here on Earth?
