Hey guys, it's been a while, decided to drop by and visit for a bit

Something that's come up in a lot of my debates in real life and elsewhere on the intarwebs is the idea of subjective morality, the idea that the non-believer can't come up with a world view beyond like and dislike. For example, the idea that without God, the only reason someone would deem murder as "bad" is because they dislike murder, obviously a stronger form of dislike than say, not liking vegetables, but a dislike all the same.

So the conclusion that these theists make, is that man alone has no way of deciding what is good and what is bad beyond preference. But if this true, how can a theist recognize a goodness in God? The theist (at least in this case) has already concluded that man can not recognize goodness beyond preference. How can a theist claim that God is good if man doesn't understand what good actually means?

The best that the theist can do is trust that God is good, but that seems just as subjective as what the theist was arguing against in the first place.

To sum it up, if we have morality outside of God to judge that God is good, God becomes irrelevant, as we already have a basis for morality. If we have no way to judge morality, then no one can claim that God is good outside of personal preference.
Hardcore Newbie Reviewed by Hardcore Newbie on . Objective vs Subjective Morality. Hey guys, it's been a while, decided to drop by and visit for a bit :) Something that's come up in a lot of my debates in real life and elsewhere on the intarwebs is the idea of subjective morality, the idea that the non-believer can't come up with a world view beyond like and dislike. For example, the idea that without God, the only reason someone would deem murder as "bad" is because they dislike murder, obviously a stronger form of dislike than say, not liking vegetables, but a dislike Rating: 5