See, that's the fundamental flaw with most religious thought. "I'm a mortal, and God is so powerful and infinite that I couldn't possibly understand Him". Well, if you can't understand him, how can you possibly make such arguments? If He is so all powerful that He is uncomprehendable, how are you so quick to know where He came from with mere mortal logic? 

Also, who is to say that the God you worship isn't merely something that was created by something outside the realm of God? I could just as easily say that something outside of God's realm, created God, then God, outside the realm of time and space, created the universe. And I could keep going back further and further, and you would have absolutely no evidence to make a counterargument.

The assumption of "must be that something" is just this guys rationale for explaining something he doesn't understand. But you know what else came about from people not understanding things? Greek mythology. Why is their thunder and lightning? Oh Zeus did it. Why do we love one another? Oh Aphrodite did it.

Why can't something above God "be that something"? And why can't something above that "be that something"? Who are we, as humans who have no finite evidence of anything above our spatial plane, to say that it stops at this God that you worship, and nothing above that? What evidence do you have other than an old book that has the writings of man?

We say that God spoke to man, and he interpreted his words into the Bible. How do we know for sure if that interpretation is correct? Remember, man is supposed to be flawed, so maybe everything we know about God is flawed, since it was man who supposedly passed down the word of God.

I've gotten into too many topics. I normally like to focus on one point when making an argument, but it's so easy to spill over into something else, so the balls in your court now

I know you never called yourself a humanist on these forums but I imagined that you would imagine yourself to be a humanist if one would ask you IRL.

Your last paragraph is key. And yes most people do this (elevate their personal morals). There's an alternative conclusion to the one you drew though. Why is this impulse so strong within us, the fact that so many people hold their morals up to an absolute? Why is it so hard for us to tolerate different opinions on our core moral issues? I can't see the necessity to evolve such a strong moral sense so quickly.

And about different morals, actually when it comes to core morals we have the same morals. Why is the world evolving its common morals to the Human Rights that we agree upon universally, no matter if you're atheist or religious. Human Rights = absolute morals.

There's an evolutionary argument for that, of course.

Matt Ridley, I believe , put it together in a book.

But in their eyes murder and cannibalism was a perfectly fine thing to do. To them cannibals weren't wrong, and I've made that fact pretty clear. In fact they probably saw us as wrong for being so against cannibalism. 

The fact of the matter is that the most heinous crimes in one culture can be accepted in another, and that in itself proves moral relativism. I don't see how morals can even be remotely considered absolute when that is the case.

I ask again, how can morals be absolute when morals can vary so much between two societies?

Human rights aren't absolute morals. They're just morals that are fairly universally agreed upon in the Western world. In the Middle East they believe in quite a different set of morals, hence why they made their own version of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam

You don't seem to get it. How hard can it be? It doesn't matter if the cannibals thought murder and cannibalism was a perfectly fine thing to do because they did wrong!

Don't take it so literally. I know the Human Rights list is long and detailed and if I remember correctly there's even stuff that I dont agree with.

But the core elements of the declaration, the essence is based on absolute morals.

But to them it simply wasn't wrong.

They did not share in your morals.

Another example; some people consider abortion morally wrong - murder in fact. Others consider denying a woman the right to control her body by refusing her the right to an abortion morally wrong. There is no absolute answer to this that is written in stone. Morals are not absolute.

I almost started off my last post by saying you don't get it. Because you genuinely can't see it when it's right there in front of you.

Look, seriously. Wrong by whose standards? Your standards? My standards? Their standards?

Their standards are different to your standards, you can't just arbitrarily say my morals are the same as everyone else's, when clearly they aren't.

I don't agree with their moral standards, you don't agree with their morals standards, yet their moral standards exist and are vastly different from ours. Hence they are relative.

Even so, saying that your moral standards are the same as everyone else's, but the acknowledging that another group has a different set of moral standards, even if you think they are wrong, is pretty much acknowledging moral relativism anyway.

...

How about something a little more ambiguous from person to person and society to society? How about abortion?

Many people think abortion is an abhorrent act, totally immoral; where as many others  think that abortion is morally acceptable and that the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the foetus. How can moral absolution be right when some people believe terminating a pregnancy should be punishable, and others believe it to be an acceptable right?

The morals aren't absolute by any means. The morals are relative, from society to society, even from person to person. You can't just say "abortion is wrong, and there is a clear defined line and everyone sits on the one side", when it is blindingly obvious that this isn't the case. There really is no defined right or wrong answer that is agreed on by everyone.

To them it didn't seem wrong but it was wrong.

Abortion is a terrible example becase the premises for making the moral judgement are so different.
(the belief that a fetus is a child with a soul versus the belief that it's a lump of cells without awareness or identity).