Objective Morality Cannot Exist Without the Presence of a Supreme Being or Deity

Although I can understand your reasoning, I am still in disagreement. Here's why: Although society may be able to set socially subjective standards for morality, they cannot define objective morality. The reason for this is because objectivity applies to EVERYONE and not just to a certain sector of humanity. So if one society says that one thing is wrong, and the other says it is right, without the existence of a God to say what the actual standard is, it honestly doesn't matter because they're both only subjective still. If they were both objective, it wouldn't work because objective truth cannot contradict itself. Just because society is able to give standards for morality does not make it objectively right. You cannot objectively tell me that people such as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Adolf Hitler (who between the three killed over 100 million people) were within the realms of being obedient to objective morality. Just because others existed who supported their movements and ideas, does not simply therefore make it objectively okay for them to do as they did. Let us take this example to the extreme. If a world were to develop in which everybody agreed that rape and murder were perfectly acceptable at any time of day, I sincerely doubt that you would tell me that the kind of society I just described is within the realms of objective morality. But by your argument, that is what you are saying: If the human race agrees upon a universal moral, then it is therefore objective. Allow me to address another part of your argument, although I am in complete agreement that if there were an absence of a God, and there was only 1 human being on earth, his moral will would be objective because he would basically be the closest thing to God and would be the only one with the authority to assert objective morality. I don't consider that relevant and here's why: there is not just one human being on this planet. The fact that there are indeed multiple with multiple ideas as to issues of morality shows that there is indeed a need for objectivity beyond ourselves. We won't ever completely agree on anything, and I honestly doubt we'll ever come close. What if there were only two human beings on earth, and they disagreed on everything morally? Who's right? They both have the same amount of authority. This is why we need someone above us to set the standard. By your standards for morality you are saying that the human race can create its own morality. I think that you are actually only arguing that they can create socially subjective morality. Even if the whole world were to decree that the death penalty is wrong, if there's no objective being, who's to stop one man from giving the death penalty to someone? What's the real punishment deserved for him if he does give someone the death penalty? There's no supreme being to say that "that's wrong (not saying it is)" and hold him accountable to it in life after death. If he wants, he can run away and escape the punishment of the government who decreed it wrong and there will be no consequences for him, and he can live conscience free for the rest of his life believing that what he did was okay and that society is wrong. There is nothing beyond the standards of society to tell him he's wrong, and you can go against society any time you like and manipulate your way to escape punishment, and then live conscience free. Why should you have to care? Maybe you think society's wrong about whatever it is you did. And if there's no supreme being to say otherwise, then you're never going to care, or know. Surely you don't think that's right. If he even wanted, he could go and start his own society, where the death penalty is okay. Lets say (I'm just giving extreme examples to make my point) he takes over the world with this society, and then changes the mind of everyone that the Death Penalty is good. Objective morality is supposed to be set in stone. If something is truth, then it's truth. It needs to be immutable, unchanging. Humanity cannot create this kind of morality. You see us attempting to create objective morality, but in the end we can only do our best in subjectively agreeing together that something is right or wrong. Just because in the early 1700's the majority of the U.S. agreed that African Americans were inferior individuals who were not worthy to be socially or economically equal with whites, does not make that idea objective truth. It is nothing more than a social opinion, that was found to be false obviously. Objective morality requires something above us and with authority to set the standard over us all, not just a few, not just nearly all, BUT ALL. (the caps are for emphasis, not yelling lol)