So if i may share my humble opinion. God's Justice is real. It exists because God's exist. There are Moral Values because there exist God's Laws.

I don't think i can disagree with anyone here. Moral Values are objectives\? Maybe, i don't see any strong contention. But what i understand with the term "objective" is that it's clearly measurable, like 1+1=2. Now moral values are subject to judgment, either human or divine. So if its subjected to judgment then it becomes "subjective". ???

I've answered your comment point for point. You seem to be unaware of what it means to exist objectively. Just think about how pointless your rebuttal is to say that, because moral values are "GOD'S" values - they aren't objective!

I answered all of your point and you didn't answer any back; you just wave your arms and that it. You've been thoroughly trounced.

<If Objective in your definition only refers to the metaphysical status eg re Moral Values, then you must be confused.>

The argument is 1000 years old. I'm not confused. Yes, objective moral values means that they exist independent of mankind, whereas if each man has his own idea of moral values and they originate in him, then they are relative to one another, necessarily.

Amazing that you can't see this point. You should know that this is never the point of contention or controversy in any high level debate on the subject! Save your cannon fire for a meaty, critical, controversial point - not this.

<Note that we are already talking in circles, not really communicating optimally>

No circles at all. First you failed to read my post completely so you misunderstood what objective meant. I took the time to explain it to you. That is not talking in circles at all.

<Ergo: we are flawed, and arguing OMVs from a perfect place/being isn't exactly our forte; neither yours nor mine nor anyone else's.

We're back to cause and effect - ontology applied. Discussed, not dictated. You are too flawed to even attempt that, but there we go; why not give it a <really> good shot?>

Amazing. You fail to grasp the simple idea that objective existence and relative existence are opposites. Incredible.

<But what i understand with the term "objective" is that it's clearly measurable, like 1+1=2>

No sir. It's more like asking if the number 1 exists and if so, how. Well, that's not a perfect analogy but I hope you get the idea.

To get to the heart of the matter just ask yourself a question: where do moral values come from? We have two choices. 1. They come from God or 2. they come from man.

In the case that they come from God then we can say moral values exist objectively. That is, some things are right or wrong *independent* of what you or I think.

However, if you say that there is no God and moral values are just the product of human minds, then what you think is right is right for you. What I think is right is right for me. If you think I'm wrong - I don't care because you have your values and I have mine. In this case moral values do not exist objectively. They exist relatively; relative to you and me.

Classic example: The Nazi's and the holocaust. If moral values exist only relatively, then there was nothing really wrong with the holocaust. After all, the Nazi's thought it was a good thing to do and it was their culture so it's wasn't "really" wrong. It might seem wrong to Jews or Americans but that's just our opinion and we are all entitled to our opinions. No opinion is right or wrong. This is relativism.

Well of course they don't need to believe in God to be moral. That's easy to see. There are lots of atheists that behave with better morals than many so-called Christians.

But that has nothing to do with this question about the ontology of moral values.

The bottom line is that if your moral experience tells you that some things are *really* wrong (like torturing children, rape, cruelty etc...) then you should believe that God exists.

Consider: does anyone *really* believe that when one says it is wrong to rape an infant that it is really just his opinion? Is it really just a matter of opinion that there is a real objective difference between love and hate?

<achieve> Tried to make a laymen's point that can't be found in scholarly work: that moral values can't exist objectively if they are grounded in God.

Breathtaking.

Theism holds that moral values are part of God's nature. As such they belong to Him and are are not the product of subjective human thought.

The atheist needs to prove that sans God moral values still exist objectively. However, the vast majority of atheist scholars and philosophers can't make this case, so they conclude that moral values don't exist objectively. These are people like Dawkins, Nietzsche and Sarte.

<refused: circular reasoning for the win>

It's not circular.

b. <Fine for the fun of it, I will try to debuke even your little sylogism, no matter how flawed it is.>

c. <I wonder where that <Masterdebater> has gone.>

d. <Circularity and formal logic do not rule each other out.>

e. <I am calling you a moron>

f. <Put forward an argument that is not circular, and I might consider mopping the floor with you, intellectually>

g. <Refused: Fine I will retract my claim of circularity, >

That fly was really satisfying to swat.

1. Is it possible that God exists in some possible world?

This question involves 'possible worlds' semantics. The question basically asks if it is possible that God could have (if he didn't exist in this particular world) existed in at least some possible world.

The world could be different in many ways and in each way it is different, it is a different possible world.

It's a version of the ontological argument by Norman, I think. Doesn't add anything new over and above Descartes or Anselm so far as I can see. At least, if you think Kant's objection that existence is not a predicate deals successfully with the former, you can't really claim Norman's version overcomes this.

sorry to say <wannabe>, but now you see the <!!> tactic. ask a seeminly harmless question, and if you answer honestly, he then runs with it to absurd and laughable lengths. If you don't follow him all the way, he'll harass you over and over.

Problem is, <Big Pawn> doesn't do so.