I did ask you to clarify your responses to lagtight; but I also presented an argument.

You've misinterpreted me so badly here I'm not sure how to respond to your arguments. Give me one.

1) Sans an objective moral law giver, objective morals cannot exist.
2) Objective morals do exist.
3) Therefore, an objective moral law giver exists.

and then... God is the best explanation for an objective moral law giver.

Your first premise is very questionable. As Felix has tried to convey, we do not require that a medical knowledge giver exist in order for objective medical knowledge to exist. We do not require an engineering principle giver to exist in order to recognize that there are objective engineering principles. Why should morality be different? Objective morality may exist, even if, much like medicine and engineering, our knowledge of it is imperfect and incomplete.

Your second is arguable, since what people see as moral has changed distinctly over time and has varied from society to society. We now think that encouraging a person to commit suicide would be an immoral act, for example. Hop in your time machine and go back to 16th century Japan, though, and ask someone living there and then what they think about encouraging suicide and you would probably get a completely different answer. Heck go back about 160 years in the USA and you would find all kinds of things that would be considered perfectly fine that we now find morally reprehensible. That is not to say those things were moral, but how do we know that those societies had it wrong and wr have it right? Those people were just as convinced of their morality as we are of ours. How do we know that what we do today will not be judged just as harshly by future societies?

Your conclusion certainly follows from the two premises, but your comment upon it most certainly does not; it is simply an assertion without any argument or evidence to back it up. Maybe Zeus is the most likely source of moral law. Maybe it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or invisible pink unicorns. Maybe it is Joe Pesci. Who knows? There is no evidence that ANY particular possibility is the supreme law giver. Why is the purported Christian God the obvious choice?

Other than that, your argument looks pretty good!

:-) this got an authentic lol out of me

Medical knowledge as well as engineering principles are significantly different than an objective moral code. Medical knowledge and engineering principles (in fact, all our natural laws) are descriptive -- they describe how the world works. On the other hand, an objective moral code is prescriptive -- it prescribes how we *should* act. The "should" part requires an objective code giver.

(who's Felix?)

Damn autocorrect; I was abbreviating fellagaga’s handle.

Descriptive vs proscriptive does not explain why one requires a law giver and the other does not. Utilitarianism, for example, is a principle that provides a perfectly objective moral code in any given situation without the necessity of a supernatural law giver. We can argue whether or not that principle results in morality as it is generally accepted, but in any given situation there is in fact an action that has the most benefit to people overall (or does the least harm). We may not know what that action is (just as we do not always know the right engineering principle or the right medical diagnosis), but there is an objective answer. There is no need for any lawful to have an objective moral standard.

Now, if I grant for the sake of argument that there is indeed an objective morality and that a lawgiver is needed for such an objective morality to exist, would you be willing to tackle the issue of why it is that the Christian God is the most likely source, rather than some other lawgiver?

Not yet; I'm interested in the argument so I want to see if I can defend premise 1 this way or if I need to concede and try another tack. I'm buried with work stuff rn and can't really put any thought into it atm.

Still buried but haven't forgotten about this. I'll have to concede prescriptive vs descriptive doesn't work to defend Premise 1 and I'll have to re-tack.

Hope you're running well.

Was that lightning strike today near the White House god doing more of his loving justice, or just nature? And how do you know the difference? Ask him in prayer?