Does absolute morality require a supernatural explanation?

[RCTjunkie]

Jay520 said:

RCTjunkie said:

I must not have been clear; I apologize.

Of course I know that we can't have all of the attributes of God's character. We would be God if that was the case. Morality is the commands that God gives us to live lives that reflect His love and glory and ultimately bring a most satisfying life.

You're still confusing morality with what is best form an evolutionary standpoint. We as conscious creatures would obviously love to flourish and do what's best for us, but from a naturalistic viewpoint, who is to say that this particular way is objectively good? We aren't morally obligated to look out for the well-being of other people beyond the commands of other people.

Think of the naturalistic morality as a game of chess. You can make good moves and bad moves. You don't, however, call a bad move an "evil" move. Simultaniously, you can't call the Ravens a morally rightous team because they won the Super Bowl. THey're completely different things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to equate morality with pleasure vs misery, which do not always correlate with each other, and thus, are not universally combatable and relatable. 

If morality is "the commands that God gives us to live lives that reflext His love and glory...." then of course morality would require a supernatural force. But that's because you tied the definition of morality to a supernatural force. Can you give a definition of "good" without the definition necessiating the existence of God? 

Tell me what makes your definition of "good" (meaning God's character) more accurate than my definition of "good" (what's best for most people).

Well, of course I can't define good without necessiting the existance of God, because there are none without God!

God's character  establishes moral values because He is by definition the greatest conceivable being and highest good. God's attributers of being wholly loving, fair, faithful, etc. provides an absolute standard to measure all actions, and allowing morality to exist fully beyond humans.

God's commandments, being consistent with His holy nature, also provide a solid ground for objective moral duties, the two greatest being loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and also to love your neighbor as yourself.

Now don't get me wrong, atheist can very well live a happy, moral, wonderful life that can put many Christians to shame. That's not my arguement, however. The morality offered up as "best for most people" cannot be morality in an objective sense, because looking at the large picture, we're not doing what's best for the whole planet, let alone the universe. We have an unjustified bias in our own species, if you will. Why is making the human's best well-being objectively good? Because it is what's best for our species? That's just circular reasoning.

Let me try to be clear one more time: Trying to do what's best for our species as a whole cannot always be objectively moral. Even if we are naturally "moral" to each other, there is no guarantee or moral obligation beyond what other humans tell us what to do and what not to do. Why listen to said humans? Why do they know any better? We are simply animals  on a spinning rock around a hot star.