Objective morality as evidence for the existence of God?

Because these "organs for morality", looking at history, can be wired up in a multitude of ways and function fine. Just like the "organs for language" can be wired up in a multitude of ways and function fine. There's no objective language, and no objective morality.

I get the sense this was a bit of equivocating. Edit: what am I, chopped liver? I knew the moment I saw this question there was something wrong but it took me a while to put it in words.

Edit: you insist on perpetuating your eyes analogy because you can't take on the language analogy. Language and morality are internal senses, eyes perceive the external world. And chopped liver is an old American idiom, brought up by your demand for quick answers to a question I needed to think about.

Then why are you not arguing there's an objective language? "Intimidating question, eh? No answers."

That sort of got my hackles up, right there. Final edit: and all moral systems deal with how you handle different situations. Similarities =/= universality, especially given the broad range of both language systems and moral systems.

And without wanting to delve too deep into linguistics, all languages *may* descend from some ur-language but that doesn't make it a "universal language*. And "universal grammar" is something that will cause fights among linguistics students, so that is by no means a settled subject. I takes a while to pick apart clever arguments which are wrong.

And lack of answers may denote any number of things. Sorry, wrong word. Language.

Not universal. What's the english term for where you try to compare apples with oranges? Ah, conflation.

Okay, we'll agree to disagree here. Both language and morality deal with real external situations in their own subjective internal ways. You can talk absolute sense and have sensible moral reasoning, in a multitude of ways, and none of them have to agree.

By contrast, eyes perceive the external world directly (leaving aside matters of interpretation of what you see). Eyes can work better or worse; this is why we have glasses. Nobody would argue one language is objectively better than another one.

Well, not sane people anyway.

I think you assume such things reside in the material realm. There is no objective morality in the material realm since there is nothing to compare to absolutely as the highest good or the greatest evil. Neither is it a non-entity - but it exists in the realm of the Spirit the eternal unchanging reality from which all temporal things spring.

You are wrong, and all human history proves you are wrong. Adolph Hitler was "moral" in his own eyes. Stalin and the communists were "moral" in their own eyes.

Islam, which will take your life, will do it in the name of Allah.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.