The Problem with Divine Command Theory

[MindTrap028]

First, I don't continue for the sake of argument. I've conceded part of the OP, but not the part you're referencing. The part that has been dispensed with is this: "If a given act is only good/bad on God's say-so..." It doesn't look like God's say-so plays any role in whether a thing is good or bad. He might say so, but his saying so isn't what makes it so. So to the extend that DCT says that moral values are assigned by God, it doesn't appear to be a valid theory.

Earlier in the thread I refereanced that there appears to be two different kinds of moral decrees. Granted that was directed at future.
The first is like the command to not eat the forbiden fruit, which I concieded could be different the next day, but the context would have changed.
The second is more elemental, such as the driving morality which makes it good for Man to obey God and not eat the fruit.

It is in regards to the second that our conversation has taken place, or ... that it would apply. Though I would say that it would still apply to the former in that God could not issue any moral statement that violated any of the aspects of his nature.
The first just allows for multiple consistent statements. So god could command a person to walk down the street, and he would have a duty to obey.
So his "say so" is still very relevant in some aspects.

Second, again, you can claim that my sense of morality comes from God all you like, but that doesn't make it so

Of course that is not my argument. My argument is grounded in the validity of the statements, not in the person who is saying them.
I have not once appealed to my own authority or my own perception as the thing which makes the claims valid.

And because you don't, you're on all fours with everyone insofar as the basis for your system of morality is concerned. It's no more objective than anyone else's. Nothing will change that, no matter how often you claim it. Note that I'm NOT claiming that my system of morality IS objective; I'm saying that I have literally no reason to think that THEIST'S is.

This mistakes the truth claims for our access to them. Sure we all experience the universe with the same tools.
That doesn't make all claims equally valid, or equal in nature. That is a categorical error.
Otherwise I can simply reply "that is just your opinion that it's just my opinion", and we get nowhere and say nothing.

Now, I’m not inviting a debate over the merits of this system or that (and if you want to engage in that debate, I’ll tell you now that I don’t intend to participate). I’m simply pointing out that, in terms of actually authenticating one system over the other, no one seems to have a clear advantage. And because no one has a clear advantage, it makes no sense at all to claim one is objective and the other is not.

There are secular systems of morality that are regarded as objective that do not appeal to a deity; you simply have to research the subject.

I am not going to contend with the merits, I do however object that they are similar claims.
In the end, one is the claim about the objective, and the other is a claim about the subjective.
Even granting the reasonableness of the harm pricniple it is not logically possible for it to establish duties in anyone.
This is the good/ough fallacy.
Just because somethng is good, doesn't mean you ouht to do it. It is good for you to be a Dr, but you dont have a moral obligation to become a Dr.

See my conflicting feelings on the level to push this issue.

There are secular systems of morality that are regarded as objective that do not appeal to a deity; you simply have to research the subject.

Well, I have heard of some, but I wasn't aware that it would put atheists on the same footing as theists, because most atheists do not appeal to an objective moral standard.
I honestly wasn't aware that you were appealing to an objective morality of your own.
If it is indeed an objective claim, as the theist makes, then then the objection would be to their equivilance of plausibility and expanitory power.
Which is a merit argument. As your not interested in that.....
It would be necissary for you to defend it, if you are going to forward the claim that they are both on the same footing, because that requires them to be equally plausible.
Again, a merit issue.

Am I to ignore the claim then? or challenge you to support if you are going to contiue to make it?
I mean, i don't want to force you into a debate your not interested in, however you shouldn't get to make claims that you are not going to support.
... i'm conflicted.
Should we just leave it at your opinion is noted?

And yes, while I appreciate your appeals to God's nature, you absolutely failed to give me an answer, a couple of times. I asked you to "Pick any one thing, and explain - without simply saying it is so, or appealing to your moral intuition - what makes it objectively wrong.", and you said first "That it is logically contrary to god" and second you said that this was the best you had. With respect, that's nothing like an answer to the question I asked.

I'm not sure why, as there is no distinction between Gods goodness and his Justice, they are both different aspects of his nature.
You simply rejected the former as a valid answer, and accepted the later. ..but they are essentially the same, as both are aspects of God.
That is what it means to be logically contrary to God, which is my original answer.
Look, we shouldn't bicker and argue about who killed who, this is supposed to be a happy time. I just don't want to be accused of not offering an answer, when I earnestly feel that I did, and spent a lot of time attempting to communicate it to you.
Saying an answer is unacceptable is not the same as not offering an answer.

Last, yes, our agreement means that it is coherent to speak of God as being the source of immutably true moral laws and values, but it doesn't suggest that God commands anything to be moral or immoral; they simply are what they are relative to God.

I would say that given the pointing to of gods goodness in relation to Gods commands, is a common defense of DCT.
I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that Gods commands become irrelevant, or that he doesn't make them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBvi_auKkaI

[MindTrap028]

--One last thing---
This has been one of the better threads, and I regret that I can't give you any more rep. With patience of explaining your position as well as effort to understand the other side, You have produced a workshop that we all should strive to emulate.

[mican333]

It doesn't look like God's say-so plays any role in whether a thing is good or bad. He might say so, but his saying so isn't what makes it so. So to the extend that DCT says that moral values are assigned by God, it doesn't appear to be a valid theory.

Why not?

As far as I can tell, IF God exists and IF God says "X is immoral" then X is objectively immoral.

Maybe a way to look at the issue is to compare the moral laws of the universe with the physical laws of the universe. IF (emphasis on "if") God made the universe, then the reason that gravity exists is because God made it exist (because God made everything in the universe). And likewise IF God made a universe where X is immoral as well, then X being immoral is as objectively true as the fact that gravity exists.

You can use whatever term you want for how God made "it so", but regardless if God made it so within this universe, then it is so and therefore God-defined moral positions are as objectively true as God-made physical laws, such as gravity.

Second, again, you can claim that my sense of morality comes from God all you like, but that doesn't make it so (you don't have the power of Divine Command, either ). And because you don't, you're on all fours with everyone insofar as the basis for your system of morality is concerned. It's no more objective than anyone else's.

But I would not consider that a flaw with DCT.

A theory (I suppose DCT is really more of a hypothesis than a theory) that cannot be proven to be true is not inherently flawed. Sure, one is completely justified in not accepting DCT as true due to the lack of evidence for it, but establishing that it's flaw would require something along the lines of internal inconsistency or to contradicting established facts.

I am not a proponent of DCT by any means but I don't feel that I, or anyone else here, has the ability to show that the notion of our morals being God-given is an inherently flawed notion.

[SharmaK]

Divine Command Theory is, generally speaking, the theory that God, being the arbiter of morality, assigns moral value to any given act via his divine "command". Additionally, God is ultimate moral standard; the source of good. That is to say, he is where the quality of "good" comes from. These things, coupled with his ultimate authority, gives any act its intrinsic moral value. For example, the act of rape is morally bad because God says it is bad, not because of the nature of the act of rape itself.

Adherents of DCT typically maintain that anyone who doesn't believe in a God as an ultimate moral standard is unable to grasp why any given act is really right or wrong; they insist that the non-theist can only defer to might-makes-right, popular opinion or individual feelings. However, we often see deferences to intuition from these same people, who insist that a person would have to be irrational, unreasonable, and/or deranged to think something like torturing babies is morally acceptable (and I would agree, for the record). It is not unusual for the theist and the non-theist agree on the moral status of such acts; the primary difference is that the theist believes they have access to some special insight on the matter that is opaque or unavailable to the non-theist.

The problem of DCT is this: If a given act is only good/bad on God's say-so, then God could say otherwise and the act would no longer be what is was previously. This is true irrespective of how the status of any given act may suddenly offend one's intuition. For example, rape would become intrinsically good if God changed its status. This is because the status of the ACT doesn't change GOD. GOD changes the status of the ACT. To deny this is to deny God's omnipotence, and to deny his authority.

Discuss

The real problem of DCT is that it relies on the existence of God, or at least the belief that God exists. I know it's obvious, but if your starting point is a magic man in the sky, there's nothing wrong with anything that can be concluded from that. You're arguing a believer's view of morality as stated in stone (literally in the 10 commandments and figuratively in the Bible) so they have no choice in the matter, even when it sometimes conflicts with their modern moral intuitions: it's part of the rules of belonging to a religion.

There's also no need to postulate whether God will say rape is a good thing because we've already seen the terrible things some Xians have said about homosexuals and their hypocrisy and double standards in their viewpoints on abortion; even though it largely makes no sense in the modern world, with a fact-based view of humanity. We already also know that religion's inflexibility can be problematic without inventing new situations that will never happen.

Your hypothetical also has things backwards in this regard: God's words have already been written so there is no chance for him to change the morality of something: the static nature of what God has said has already been locked up and it's not like there has been much more to say in the last 2,000 years. So your situation will never happen (because God doesn't really exist but that's besides the point). In fact, to argue otherwise, is literally to argue against 2,000 years of thought that has proven God's (and therefore his morality's) existence as a necessary conclusion to the existence of the universe. Modern theology doesn't even allow God to change his mind!

The real problem with DCT isn't just with what God said, but also in what he didn't say. A God that spends 30% of his time promoting himself (in the 10 commandments) and not once about pedophilia and slavery causes real issues in the modern world: witness Roy Moore and his tendencies towards child brides, in a country (the USA mind) where the legal age to marry can be as low as 10 (there were more than 200,000 child marriages in the last 15 years, sauce )!


What's interesting is seeing how modern Christians have had to take something static and definitively stated and figure out ways to ignore direct words said by their own deity. The most obvious one is from God's own commandment about adultery, which arguably also includes general fornication and other non-procreative unmarried sexual encounter. What Christian, DCT-believer or otherwise, (indeed what Muslim or Jew) really holds to this rather direct and specific directive from God himself?

And if believers can pick and choose what they wish to focus their moral outrage on, what is the point of DCT anyway, if even explicit commandments can be so blithely disregarded?

When theists argue against an atheist morality, they are generally correct: atheists don't have a static (or what theists also like to claim as being 'objective') moral outlook because they only have facts to deal with. They MUST change their moral stances as they learn new facts; they don't get to hold onto prior beliefs if their moral stances are challenged by indisputable facts. The problem with relying on intuition though is that it gets atheists into trouble: a heterosexual man will find homosexuality kinda gross and if such intuitions were used as a moral guideline then surely homosexuality is immoral.

So whilst I agree DCT is problematic, I do so for different reasons but also think that not having a fact-based moral system is problem for even believers: how many Xians do you know that liken homosexuality to pedophilia, yet somehow they 'love' that same person?

[futureboy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBvi_auKkaI

The fact that comments are disabled on the video is quite telling, indeed. But the biggest problem with it is that it doesn't address the actual issue with theists' response to the Euthyphro dilemma. They simply misinterpret and/or misrepresent the issue as expressed by just one guy, claim it doesn't make sense as he expressed it, and then move on to attacking atheists' foundation for morality. The real issue with the common response is: Did god determine his own goodness-nature (ie: could he have chosen to have a different nature and represent goodness in a different divine form)? If yes, then we're back to old arbitrary DCT, where goodness is only good because god chose it as his nature. If no, then goodness is good regardless of a god. Or, expressed differently: Could god's nature have been different?
This is not addressed by Craig.

[MindTrap028]

The fact that comments are disabled on the video is quite telling, indeed.

Not really.

But the biggest problem with it is that it doesn't address the actual issue with theists' response to the Euthyphro dilemma. They simply misinterpret and/or misrepresent the issue as expressed by just one guy, claim it doesn't make sense as he expressed it, and then move on to attacking atheists' foundation for morality. The real issue with the common response is: Did god determine his own goodness-nature (ie: could he have chosen to have a different nature and represent goodness in a different divine form)? If yes, then we're back to old arbitrary DCT, where goodness is only good because god chose it as his nature. If no, then goodness is good regardless of a god. Or, expressed differently: Could god's nature have been different?
This is not addressed by Craig.

Not really, because any line of questioning can succumb to an infinite regress of "why". Though God is the ultimate answer... so of course we get the attempt to separate God from his own nature.
God's goodness is a sufficient answer to the dilemma. And "arbitrary" is a different point than the Euthyphro dilemma makes.
Given that God is a necessary being, it is the opposite of arbitrary, because his nature couldn't be any other way.
The idea that you are trying to separate God from his own nature, is nonsensical.

[Belthazor]

Given that God is a necessary being, it is the opposite of arbitrary, because his nature couldn't be any other way.

Why is God's nature necessarily "good"?

[mican333]

Why is God's nature necessarily "good"?

It's pretty much part of the definition of God. Omni-benevolent.

[futureboy]

Not really.

Yes, really. You can try an experiment to see why: re-upload the video with comments enabled, and watch the comments come in.

Not really, because any line of questioning can succumb to an infinite regress of "why". Though god is the ultimate answer... so of course we get the attempt to separate god from his own nature.

"Succumbing to an infinite regress" is not something anyone's suggesting. There very well may be an infinite regress of "how" ("why" is not the right question) that we will forever be able to investigate and discover. In a very real sense, it is theists who are "succumbing" to the apparent infinite regress of the unknown by falling back on the non-explanation of magic.

god's goodness is a sufficient answer to the dilemma.

I've explained why it's not. This is nothing more than a "nuh-uh". If you're going claim the answer is nothing more than "god's goodness is god's goodness and that's what is good and all that can be good because it's god's goodness", then this fails due to its reliance on the existence of god, which would then need to be demonstrated in order for you to even claim such morality actually exists. Since you can't, all your position is left with is the conclusion that morality as you have defined it doesn't exist. Further, this also fails the is/ought challenge. Just claiming that god=good in no way provides the ought, as explained earlier.

And "arbitrary" is a different point than the Euthyphro dilemma makes.

No, actually it's one of the main issues with that horn of the dilemma, and it's the first one mentioned by most sources. From wikipedia: "Criticisms: This horn of the dilemma also faces several problems. 1. No reasons for morality: If there is no moral standard other than God's will, then God's commands are arbitrary (i.e., based on pure whimsy or caprice). This would mean that morality is ultimately not based on reasons."

Given that god is a necessary being, it is the opposite of arbitrary, because his nature couldn't be any other way.

If his nature couldn't have been any other way, then he did not determine his own nature, and therefore that which makes it good is external to god and there are moral standards independent of god.

The idea that you are trying to separate God from his own nature, is nonsensical.

I don't have to try, you just did by admitting his nature couldn't have been any other way.

[MindTrap028]

Yes, really. You can try an experiment to see why: re-upload the video with comments enabled, and watch the comments come in.

Yes but that is not relevant to the content of the video or its validity.

"Succumbing to an infinite regress" is not something anyone's suggesting. There very well may be an infinite regress of "how" ("why" is not the right question) that we will forever be able to investigate and discover. In a very real sense, it is theists who are "succumbing" to the apparent infinite regress of the unknown by falling back on the non-explanation of magic.

God's nature is a sufficient answer to the question posed. Re-forming the question at that point no longer makes sense when applied to God himself.
Like asking who created God. Or why a necessary being is the way it is. Those questions lose meaning, and coherency.

I've explained why it's not.

I think you just asked to irrelevant questions. I don't think you "explained" why it must be the case that God's goodness as the source of morality, isn't a sufficient explanation for the source of morality.

If you're going claim the answer is nothing more than "god's goodness is god's goodness and that's what is good and all that can be good because it's god's goodness", then this fails due to its reliance on the existence of god, which would then need to be demonstrated in order for you to even claim such morality actually exists.

Not quite, the thread is about the veracity of God as the answer for the existence of morality.
you would have to concied the debate here, in order to move on to that objection. Namely that If God exists then his goodness is a sufficient answer to the eurithro delima for the source of morality.

Further, this also fails the is/ought challenge. Just claiming that god=good in no way provides the ought, as explained earlier.

I have addressed the Is/ought fallacy as you have applied it. I'm not clear on your rebuttal to that.

No, actually it's one of the main issues with that horn of the dilemma, and it's the first one mentioned by most sources. From wikipedia: "Criticisms: This horn of the dilemma also faces several problems. 1. No reasons for morality: If there is no moral standard other than God's will, then God's commands are arbitrary (i.e., based on pure whimsy or caprice). This would mean that morality is ultimately not based on reasons."

My Bad, I withdraw that point.

If his nature couldn't have been any other way, then he did not determine his own nature, and therefore that which makes it good is external to god and there are moral standards independent of god.

It does not follow that becuase God did not determine his own nature, that his nature therefor had an external cause.
As God and his nature are indistinguishable elements, the objection is incoherent.

I don't have to try, you just dId by admitting his nature couldn't have been any other way.

Then you misunderstand what I am saying.
As God is a necessary being, his nature is who he is and is therefore necessary. .. Because it is indistinguishable from him.
God is his nature.


---

Why is God's nature necessarily "good"?

I differ to Mican. He basically has it right.
At some point you and Future are asking why a necessary being is the way it is.
The answer is because he is necessarily so.

God is the definition of Good. It doesn't make sense to ask where this definition came from or why it is that way or to suppose that it could be some other way.
As he is necessary he necessarily is the definition of Good. It could not be any other way, because that would make God contingent.
That is why God is the un-caused Cause.. because if he was caused then that cause would be God. Same with Goodness.

[Belthazor]

I differ to Mican. He basically has it right.

Yes, Christians define God in this way, but it doesn't speak to why it is necessarily so which was my question.

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------

God is the definition of Good. It doesn't make sense to ask where this definition came from or why it is that way.

It does make sense to ask why.

If I grant for the moment God made the universe, why would God have to be the definition of good necessarily?
IOW, God can be a necessary being for the creation of the universe but why does that make him all good? Why does ability to create the universe and life necessarily make such a being all moral, good etc? Why is an uncaused cause by definition "all good"? If God had a temper or some other less than desirable trait why, would that make God incapable of creating a universe and life?
If I grant one God made this universe, that in no way means there could not be a different God that made a different universe. If that was the case, would that God necessarily have the same morals etc. that the Christian God has?

Hopefully I am asking more clearly what I am after tonight as I have a bit more time for a change to think about what to say.

If I may ask a question. Should man succeed in creating a new life form should we do with it as we see fit?

[MindTrap028]

Yes, Christians define God in this way, but it doesn't speak to why it is necessarily so which was my question.

O.K. Yes, I see what your getting at now.
I think that is a little bit different question than what the OP is dealing with.

It does make sense to ask why.

I think in regards to the OP one would have to concede that God as defined is a sufficient answer to the OP. Then We can tackle why God is defined that way.
The OP grants God, and I'm not defending anything other than the Christian God, and tries to apply an apparent contradiction.

That is why my first reaction was that it makes no sense to question what is granted without conceding that it is a sufficient answer.

If I grant for the moment God made the universe, why would God have to be the definition of good necessarily?
IOW, God can be a necessary being for the creation of the universe but why does that make him all good? Why does ability to create the universe and life necessarily make such a being all moral, good etc? Why is an uncaused cause by definition "all good"? If God had a temper or some other less than desirable trait why, would that make God incapable of creating a universe and life?
If I grant one God made this universe, that in no way means there could not be a different God that made a different universe. If that was the case, would that God necessarily have the same morals etc. that the Christian God has?

Hopefully I am asking more clearly what I am after tonight as I have a bit more time for a change to think about what to say.

If I may ask a question. Should man succeed in creating a new life form should we do with it as we see fit?

Basically your asking why is goodness part of the definition of God. I would say that this goes back to the moral argument for God.
Not from creation per say, but from our observation of Morality, and objective morality needs God in order to exist.
So God is either the definition of Good, or there is no such thing as objective morality. We perceive objective moral truths, therefore God exists as the standard of Good.

If I may ask a question. Should man succeed in creating a new life form should we do with it as we see fit?

Off track, but no, as all things belong to the Lord. IE we are still accountable for what we have authority over. We pretty much have full authority over Animals, and we are not free to do whatever we wish with them so as to include evil acts.

[Belthazor]

O.K. Yes, I see what your getting at now.
I think that is a little bit different question than what the OP is dealing with.

Sorry, I don't mean to wonder to far off Op.

---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 PM ----------

Basically your asking why is goodness part of the definition of God. I would say that this goes back to the moral argument for God.
Not from creation per say, but from our observation of Morality, and objective morality needs God in order to exist.
So God is either the definition of Good, or there is no such thing as objective morality. We perceive objective moral truths, therefore God exists as the standard of Good.

I look but see no actual evidence of objective morality nor objective moral truths actually existing. Could you provide me an example?

---------- Post added at 07:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------

Off track, but no, as all things belong to the Lord. IE we are still accountable for what we have authority over. We pretty much have full authority over Animals, and we are not free to do whatever we wish with them so as to include evil acts.

Again, my apologies to the op, but this is the only place people talk with me about these things.

You did not mention the possibility of another God creating another universe.
1. Would such a God necessarily agree with the Christian God what is "moral"?
2. If such a God existed and it's morals did not agree with the Christian God, would that God's morals still be objective for that universe?

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ----------

We pretty much have full authority over Animals, and we are not free to do whatever we wish with them so as to include evil acts.

God speaks to how we treat animals?

[MindTrap028]

I look but see no actual evidence of objective morality nor objective moral truths actually existing. Could you provide me an example?

It is immoral to torture children for fun.
Do you deny this as a moral fact?

To deny it, is to say that there is some case possible for which it IS moral to torture children for fun.
And just to head off any adventures into statements about personal opinion and states of mind, we are talking about the objective world as it exists independent of our minds and opinions.

Again, my apologies to the op, but this is the only place people talk with me about these things.

You did not mention the possibility of another God creating another universe.
1. Would such a God necessarily agree with the Christian God what is "moral"?
2. If such a God existed and it's morals did not agree with the Christian God, would that God's morals still be objective for that universe?

They would have to agree in order to both be God, because they would have to share the same nature.

God speaks to how we treat animals?

That is a rabbit I won't chase here.

[Belthazor]

It is immoral to torture children for fun.

For me, and it appears you, yes this is true. Unfortunately, human sacrifice has been quite common thru ought human history and that included children in many cases. So no, it does not appear to be objectively wrong.
It does appear to be subjectively wrong (according to me)!
I fail to see how it is objectively wrong independent of our minds? Please expand

If I were an alien just having landed on earth, how would I come to such a conclusion? How would I be aware of this "objective truth"???

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------

They would have to agree in order to both be God, because they would have to share the same nature.

You keep saying this, but why is it necessarily so??
Why would their nature HAVE to be "good" is the question?
Why would both HAVE to have the same "nature" just because they could both create a universe and life?

---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ----------

That is a rabbit I won't chase here.

Actually, you already did or I wouldn't have inquired, but fair enough. It is way off Op.
But you brought it up

[MindTrap028]

For me, and it appears you, yes this is true. Unfortunately, human sacrifice has been quite common thru ought human history and that included children in many cases. So no, it does not appear to be objectively wrong.
It does appear to be subjectively wrong (according to me)!
I fail to see how it is objectively wrong independent of our minds? Please expand

If I were an alien just having landed on earth, how would I come to such a conclusion? How would I be aware of this "objective truth"???

So your saying that objectivly there is nothing wrong with Torturing children for fun?
I mean your opinion is noted and all.. but your objectively wrong. ... right?

You keep saying this, but why is it necessarily so??
Why would their nature HAVE to be "good" is the question?
Why would both HAVE to have the same "nature" just because they could both create a universe and life?

At least here it is a given as part of the definition of God.

Actually, you already did or I wouldn't have inquired, but fair enough. It is way off Op.
But you brought it up

yes, as an example consistent with my position of having authority over something but still being held responsible.
The answer I gave was sufficient to support that.. but rabbits do run.

[Belthazor]

So your saying that objectivly there is nothing wrong with Torturing children for fun?

I said no such thing.

I don't see an objective source as yet...

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 PM ----------

I mean your opinion is noted and all.. but your objectively wrong. ...

Now if you could prove that we would both be satisfied
(even though I didn't say that, nor imply it...)

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------

At least here it is a given as part of the definition of God.

Well I guess that is nice, but how is it objectively true? Just because you define God that way is not really satisfying is it?

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------

yes, as an example consistent with my position of having authority over something but still being held responsible.
The answer I gave was sufficient to support that.. but rabbits do run.

Oh, well since they "run" it all makes sense
Let's let this one go for another, more Op appropriate time...

[MindTrap028]

I said no such thing.

I don't see an objective source as yet...

Right, which means. It lacks the objective value of being morally wrong.
Or there is nothing wrong with torturing children for fun.
(Same concept). You are affirming by denying objective moral truths and values.

Now if you could prove that we would both be satisfied
(even though I didn't say that, nor imply it...)

See above. All I am doing is repeating the necessary implication of your stance in regards to objective moral truths and values.

You say you see no such thing, which I am granting, and confirming your statement as it applies to what has been set before you IE the position you are rejecting.

Think about it like this.
me- Objective colors exist.
You- I would like to see support of that.
Me- Apples are red (the red ones..follow me don't get bogged down)
You-I don't see any objective colors, but I do think apples are red.
Me- So your wrong, you think apples are red, but they actually don't have any color. You just like to think of them as red, or imagine them as red, or project them as red, or pretend they are red, or tell yourself they are red... whatever. But they objectively have no color is what your saying. They lack a color element themselves.
You- I didn't say that.

[Belthazor]

Right, which means. It lacks the objective value of being morally wrong.
Or there is nothing wrong with torturing children for fun.
(Same concept). You are affirming by denying objective moral truths and values.

Or much more accurately:
I believe it is wrong (subjectively) as I do not have a sound source to view it objectively. Historically, not all humans agree with me it is wrong.

[MindTrap028]

That is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You could believe snakes bark. We are talking objective qualities of an act. We are not talking about you, except to the extent that you like up with reality.
That you disqualify yourself as a perciever of objective reality, means there is no grounds to continue.