Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

First, I would like to give the definition of morality and a criterion that, “…may not be necessary for addressing all cases of morality, it is helpful in many moral contexts” as argued by J.P. Moreland, distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California, second, answer your points, and third examine your examples:"Morality is concerned with our beliefs and judgments regarding right and wrong motives, attitudes, and conduct. When an ethicist studies morality, certain value concepts are the center of focus: "right," "wrong," "good," "bad," "ought,""duty," "virtuous," "blameworthy," and so on" ( J. P. Moreland, Norman L. Geisler, "The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time", p. viii).I. Set of necessary and/or sufficient conditions for defining morality.1. A judgment is moral only if it is accepted as a supremely authoritative, overriding guide to conduct, attitudes, and motives. The point of this criterion is that morality must have top priority over all else in our lives. In this way, morality is contrasted with mere custom, etiquette, and, perhaps, law. 2. A judgment is moral only if it is a prescriptive imperative which recommends actions, attitudes, and motives and not merely a factual description about actions, attitudes, and motives. This criterion expresses the distinction between a mere descriptive, factual "is" and a prescriptive, evaluative "ought" and identifies morality with the latter. 3. A judgment is moral only if it is universalizable; that is, if it applies equally to all relevantly similar situations. The main point of this criterion is to express the conviction that moral judgments must be impartially applied to moral situations by taking into account all of the morally relevant features of the situation.4. A judgment is moral only if it makes reference to human flourishing, human dignity, the welfare of others, the prevention of harm, and the provision of benefit. Inasmuch as this criterion makes exclusive reference to human beings, it is clearly inadequate as a necessary condition for morality.( J. P. Moreland, Norman L. Geisler, "The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time", p.x)a. "The universe is not an entity and cannot create such values"This is a logical (equivocation) fallacy, "taking a word with more than one definition and freely substituting one definition for another”. The word “universal” is made in refernce to condition number 3, not the cosmos.b. "How can we explain good without knowing evil? Similarly, how can evil exist without good? As the Chinese clearly put in their "yin yang" principle, opposites attract. Opposites co exist. One cannot exist without the other"1. Interesting, so does that mean that you do believe that there is such a thing as good and evil? That is, you KNOW differance between right and wrong?c. "We can explain our conscience through this. Everyone has different standards of good and evil. There is nothing that is entirely universal. A serial killer may think what he is doing is right. On the other hand, the community at large would condemn what he was doing"1. "Everyone has different standards of good and evil" That is not true. There is a difference between factual disputes and agreement in moral issues. That would be condition 2.II. Examining your examples: Adolf Hitler and the Serial Killer. Example 1: Adolf Hitler "Adolf Hitler massacred millions of Jews, thinking that he was doing something right. The outrage, or "moral values" held by many did not mean a thing to him. He had his own moral values, which were Anti-Semitic.  Notice some points you made: 1. ..."thinking that he was doing soemthing right" That would be someone who would consistently live out the ethical subjectivism. This is what ethical subjectivism is: it holds that invididuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only. 2. "The outrage, or "moral values" held by many did not mean a thing to him. He had his own moral values, which were Anti-Semitic" That would another form of relativism in which Adolf Hitler took it to another level which is: "Convemstionalism"The view that each society decides what is right and wrong in which the majority rules and morality becomes simply what is legal. "A serial killer may think what he is doing is right. On the other hand, the community at large would condemn what he was doing. Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it"Notice some points you made:1. "A serial killer may think what he is doing is right" Again, another example of consistantly living out ethical subjectivism.2. "Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it"1. "A serial killer may think what he is doing is right" Again, another example of consistantly living out ethical subjectivism.2. "Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it"a. "Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place" Woooooahhhh, are you suggesting that it is not wrong until it happens? So that means just the act is wrong and not the attitude and the motive behind stealing? And that nobody would have reacted even if there was no law? That goes along with condition 1 and 4.Question for you: You do know what stealing is? So you need help from a law to tell you what is right and wrong?  b. "just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it" There is a difference between agreement in moral issues and factual disagreements.