Well my argument is that Christian Theism has the best explanation for morality,
I can cite you several facts that debunk this notion.
1. Every single person in the world has different beliefs when it comes from right and wrong. You will not find 2 people who agree in every single instance. Not even among the Christians themselves.
2. Within cultures, people tend to have very similar beliefs about right and wrong, but across cultures, those beliefs vary widely.
3. Morality changes over time, even within the lifespan of the individual. Example: it used to be morally acceptable to burn people at the stake for heresy or witchcraft. It is no longer morally acceptable.
4. There is no evidence that God exists.
Now, given these facts, do you really think the notion of Christian theism is a theory that offers a better explanation of morality over a natural version which says our moral compass is set by evolution, culture and experience? Go over each of those points I listed and ask yourself which is a better theory that explains how morality works. God or nature... It's nature by a landslide.
this explanation is based on the moral law giver who in Himself is perfectly Good, we can discuss the merits of this claim later, once i make my point as clear as i can, This moral law giver is eternal and transcendent so the standards of Good are set in Him and by Him as He is good, so the standard of good is not IN the person it is outside the person.
Rubbish until you prove it.
prove it you might say ?
Yes, I might.
Well i'm convinced everyone who is mentally fit and morally healthy will accept the fact that to rape and kill a child is wrong and it is wrong the world over and is not subject to personal interpretation...it is simply wrong and anyone who does commit such and act should be punished in the most severe way ? does your blood not boil when you hear of such things ? do you not want justice for the offended person ?
It's always the same with arguments like this. You Christians cite the most terrible, awful possible examples of morality and ask us how we can say it is not objectively wrong to rape or kill an innocent child. You make it seem like its allllll black and white, but it's simply not. Just about all moral decisions have shades of gray, including raping an innocent child. What if a man strapped a bomb to himself and ran into a crowded football stadium and told you to rape a child or he would kill everyone in the building? Is raping a child THEN wrong? Of course raping and killing a child is almost always wrong, but not in the way you think it is. It is wrong for you, and it is wrong for me, because that is how we each perceive the act. And if you ask large swaths of people all over the world, the vast, vast majority of them would agree. That, however, does not mean it is universally wrong. It just means there is a lot of agreement on it. You make it seem like we are one giant organism linked at the hip, but we aren't. We have individual minds with individual interpretations of everything that happens.
As i say this is not a direct proof beyond a shadow of a doubt but i think from the reasons given it is the best explanation of why there are objective moral values.
Your being convinced of something isn't even the beginnings of proof. And given the points I cited, a Christian origin of morality seems the least likely scenario of the 2.
On atheism there is no clear grounding or explaination for the objectiveness of the moral values, perhaps you would like to give a theory ? this is just an exchange of ideas as i say and i think the Theistic argument is coherent.
Glad you asked. See above. The theistic argument may be coherent to you, but it does not fit with the facts as presented to us by the world we see. If you could prove the Christian God exists, prove that it is responsible for morality, explain why everyone feels differently about moral issues (though you posit it came from a singular source), explain why there are vast cultural differences (think about the Aztecs who did human sacrifice all the way up to Christians who think it's cool to chop off a piece of baby penis). I believe the natural theory explains all of those details in a vastly superior way.
Do you really think it's objectively good to chop off a baby boy's foreskin? Seriously? Because it's morally repugnant to me.
I ask you to find holes in that position. I have pointed out several ways in which your theory is a poor explanation of the facts. Please do the same for mine, or accept that yours is a poorer theory.