Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation

1. "First of all, By what standard do you appeal to, In order to say that morality is defined by what communities want it to be? And what makes the largest community the highest authority? These are ad hoc assertions with no justifications of any kind. " == can you read? Did you read my evolutionary explanation for morality? Can a community decide that killing is RIGHT? YESS. But that community wouldn't exist for long like I explained in my first post. 2. "How are you going to prove that the communities have the right to decide what is morally right or wrong without appealing to the decisions of these communities themselves? But if you do this, How are you not arguing in a circle and assuming what you are supposed to prove? Your third premise is that "communities outside of that decide whether they are right or wrong", But your conclusion is essentially the same: that "right and wrong is a hierarchy and not an absolute". You put forth your conclusion as one of your premises and therefore engage in circular reasoning. " ======== i said IF a community were to decide that murder is right, Then that community cannot exist. 3. "The idea that morality is decided by the sum of all communities is itself an objective moral claim: namely, Something is morally good (objectively) if this is what the sum of all communities deem to be good. If there is nothing higher than the sum of all communities to appeal to, Then the totality of all cultures becomes the objective moral standard. But if this is true, Relative morality is again refuted. Thus, If your cultural relativism is true, It is false. The only consistent moral relativism, By contrast, Is actually a denial of any such thing as morality. In that case, No person or community would be a higher moral authority than any other, And nothing would be truly wrong. "======== you used many word to say very little. Morality is subjective to each communities. some communities make their morality suitable for survival and therefore persist longer through time. Morality does not need to be OBJECTIVE to work. also when did I say that morality is decided by the sum of communities? What does that even mean? What i suggested was that there are MANY societies in the past with DIFFERENT morality and the one with the MORALITY that INCREASES survuval rate like do not kill, Do not steal, Survive and persist thru time like our society. 4. "If the collective says torturing babies for fun is good, Then it is. And if they change their minds, Then it isn"t. " ====== THIS IS A TERRIBLE POINT. It shows your inability to comprehend other's argument. look, If a society decides torturing babies for fun is WONDERFUL. Then they will do it. And what would happen? Well, A society killing of its next generation on a massive scale is not going to be able to persist thru time and such society would necessarily come to an end. Its like a body where the immune system decide to kill off any new cells generated. 5. "According to this system, Any individual moral reformer who goes against the sum of all communities is evil by definition. So if the whole world, By-and-large, Accepted chattel slavery, As it once did, Then abolitionists were acting immorally when they opposed that practice. " == BS, This is not what i said. Can you comprehend?