Even if you're ultimately right, it's safe to assume it's a little more nuanced than like duh. To start with, a proposition is necessarily true if it's not possible that it's not true. If God's nature is necessary, then it's not possible that he does not have that nature. If you sneak in a counterfactual about his nature, it seems that you're saying that it's possible that God doesn't have a necessary nature, and then it follows that God doesn't have a necessary nature.

Well, I guess that depends on your opinion. I'm taking it that you mean that " what if God were evil" means the same thing as " what if God were different"

Glad to know you think God isn't an actual being that manifests in reality.

In the sense that a counterfactual, valid or not, means that God' is different that God, than yes that is a LDO.

I'm reasonably sure that's not how it works. If you postulate that something is necessarily what it is, you can't alter any of its necessary properties and continue to say that it's the same thing.

Objective Morality is the idea that something is wrong or right regardless of what people think or feel.

Raping a 4 month old baby would be something you guys consider objectively immoral.

The Nazis killing the Jews would be another.

But what about things in the grey area what about abortion? or the death penalty? or collateral damage in war?

Let me give you an example in the UK the speed limit is 30mph in built up areas if you hit someone at this speed the chance of that person dieing is less than 10% or something like I can't remember but if you drive at 16mph there is only 1% chance of death so what is more moral?

Lets forget the word moral for a second for me that word is nonsensical rather lets describe what's happening in the real world,

1. Preference: I prefer not to murder and I prefer to be social with others who don't murder.

2. Risk and Reward or what do you value.

3. Power: Whoever is in charge gets to make the rules and set the standard of what they consider right and wrong.

You can't measure right or wrong like gravity because people value different things. You can't get a value from a fact its the is - ought problem.

Its like saying theres a same sexually position for everyone that's right.

Its like saying theres the same type of food for everyone that's right.

I was watching this tv documentary about jail and they did this interview with repeat offender and to him it was worth the risk for stealing and doing drugs or whatever he was doing.

Right or wrong? to who? like in poker it depends....and it depends on the 3 things I mentioned above.

How do you get a sense of what I ought to do morally speaking in an universe that was created through happenstance?

Doesn't even make sense.

How else do explain slavery ummm....it was moral back then but not now...

Its like saying theres one type of music thats right for everyone.

I think another problem is that you believe your standard and what you value is better and thus everyone ought to follow that.moral code. But "better" or "good" for who?

Morality? .....nope not buying it ........subjective preferences sure.

Moral nihilism , also known as ethical
nihilism , is the meta-ethical view that
morality does not exist as something
inherent to objective reality; therefore no
action is necessarily preferable to any
other. For example, a moral nihilist
would say that killing someone, for
whatever reason, is not inherently right
or wrong. Other nihilists may argue not
that there is no morality at all, but that if
it does exist, it is a human and thus
artificial construction, wherein any and
all meaning is relative for different
possible outcomes. As an example, if
someone kills someone else, such a
nihilist might argue that killing is not
inherently a bad thing, bad
independently from our moral beliefs,
only that because of the way morality is
constructed as some rudimentary
dichotomy, what is said to be a bad thing
is given a higher negative weighting than
what is called good: as a result, killing
the individual was bad because it did not
let the individual live, which was
arbitrarily given a positive weighting. In
this way a moral nihilist believes that all
moral claims are false.

From wiki

The above must make every nihilist a hypocrite. If no action is preferable to any other, then why do nihilists continue to eat? Eating involves effort. Why put in that effort, if not eating is equally preferable?

What you may argue against this is that - the philosophy of nihilism strictly refers to the value of moral actions, and not all actions. If this is the case however, then isn't the very foundation of the philosophy contradictory? You can't automatically discount the importance of subjective values, just because they are not inherent to objective reality. It's like trying to discount the physics of quantum mechanics just because it has no discernible basis in the physics of larger objects.

We should not be drawing any "therefore's" such as the one bolded above, until we have enough evidence to fully understand the mind-reality connection.

How about no action is OBJECTIVELY preferable.

Changes nothing. Given the common definition of 'objectivity' I would assume that this is common sense. My issue isn't with this. It's with the presumptious implications that they draw from this, with their - "therefore's".

I think this is appropriate for all the God-guided objective morality enthusiasts:

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." - Einstein.

Unfortunately, you fail to properly understand the "therefore" of God-guided morality.

I thought VeeDDzz was just saying that it's better to be good for goodness sake, rather than being good in order to get into heaven or avoid hell. Is this even a controversial statement, or am I missing something?

That is what he's saying. But that also improperly characterizes God-guided morality. In the most general sense, God-guided morality is simply that God defines morality (which has nothing to do with heaven or hell).

If he wants to apply it to Christianity in particular, it's still wrong. You do not do good actions to avoid going to hell. Doing good actions alone is simply not enough to avoid hell.

I'm confused now if people are good for goodness sake then why is there rules and laws.

Is it not more true that most people are only good because they fear punishment i.e jail etc..