Religious Claims to Objective Morality are Might Equals Right Arguments

Happy to think with you today. For those who missed it, I erroneously posted a comment as my R2 instead of a real R2. I posted the real R2 in the comments and asked Guitar to reply to it there. You can look at the comments, (I know there are quite a few, It's around the 70th comment) for my real response, And I apologize for my mistake. I shouldn't post when I'm still drowsy in the morning. That being said, My opponent's R1 argument isn't about this debate. He asks for the definition of certain words which are fairly well defined generally, And then asks for definitions to words that do not pertain to the topic. A distraction, Which is a debate strategy my opponent seems to favor. The entire 2nd half of his post is debating subjective morality, Which isn't the topic for discussion. Another distraction. Nowhere does he give an argument for attributing God with objective morality, So I am left with nothing to debate. He asks in the comments after reading my R2 "How do YOU attribute objective morality to God? " This is a silly question. I don't. I believe that attributing an entity, Even if it were known to have created the universe, With objective morality is ridiculous. There is no justification. It is exactly like saying your Mother and Father created you so they determine the morality of all your actions. No one agrees with this. No one agrees that people who invent things or create things are the moral authors of those things, And that they determine what is good or evil uses of their inventions. Their opinions are subjective either way. God's opinion is subjective. Objective Morality is true outside of ANY consciousness, Including God's. The attribute of omniscience (All-knowing) cannot even be attributed to God. Something could create the universe with less than full knowledge of everything that exists. Inventors of many things are ignorant of many facts. If God created the universe FOR us then he did a hell of a poor job did he not? We can't live in 99. 999% of the space that we know to exist. The Andromeda Galaxy will eventually collide with the Milky Way. The sun will eventually expand and burn everything on the face of this planet to death. Entropy will end us all in the heat death of the Universe. Any of these facts an omniscient or omnibenevolent (all-good) God could have avoided. There is no reason to attribute omnibenevolence to God except by saying Might Equals Right. That God's superior knowledge or power compared to us would make him correct as to how we should act. There'd be no difference if I made a claim that my IQ is 4x yours, And you must follow all my orders and accept all my moral claims due to this disparity in intelligence. You would not accept this, Were it proven to be true. If God says to kill your child, Then you have no room to say no. Who believes this? Would you, My judges, Sacrifice your child if a powerful being told you to do so? Would you rape your best friend when told? Would you Genocide entire races of humans to the last babe and justify it because a celestial dictator told you it was morally correct to do so? Those who say "yes" to all of these statements are morally bankrupt. My opponent assumes that objective morality has no basis outside of God. He assumes I believe not in objective morality. This is entirely a strawman, As well as an argument that has nothing to do with the debate itself. This is my conclusion. I leave it to the readers to determine whether or not my claim is true. That my opponent has not provided a single argument for me to analyze. He has spent all his time arguing against Subjective Morality - a position that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. My opponent is more than welcome to provide us - at last - with a genuine argument for attributing God with omnibenevolence in his R3 outside of a might equals right assertion, Or a "because I defined it as such" i. E. Ontological assertion, Which I may dismiss simply by saying "not by my definition. " as my evidence would be the same as his. I will address any real argument in the comments. Again, I apologize if R2 was confusing for the judges. I apologize for making it necessary for you to dig through the comments to find my true R2. I submit that I gave my opponent time in the comments to read my R2, Which he did, And reply, Which he did. With nothing more than asking me how I could debate his position for him, Which I am unable to, Because his position cannot be defended. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht