No it's not. Read a bit about absolute morals first. Well, actually in philosophy books there might be something labeled "moral absolutism" but that's not what I'm refering to and you should have understood it by now, I'm talking about universal morals (they're absolute too).

And your examples are bad because they're moral gray areas. With slavery and abortion you not only have very different premises - like I said one person believes it's a baby with a soul while the other believes it's a lump of cells without personality and value - you also have a significant benefit for the negative action.

It's too difficult to dicuss those gray area scenarios at this point. One would say abortion is wrong because it kills an individual while the counter argument is that you save a mother and an unwanted child from miserable lives.

Stick to drastic examples. Like torturing babies without benefit (other than let's say a mild pleasure for the perpetrator because he gets some kind of kick from watching other organisms suffer). Show me how that is not wrong.

You sure you didnt quote the wrong guy? Because i have absolutely no idea whats your point and how those P and hummingbird thing are even remotly related to eternal entity known as God in our socitey

There are no gray areas in moral absolutism.

Infant genital mutilation to no apparent end is also fairly widespread.

This idea of "universal morality" is about as specious as yoru old argument that all cultures in human history abhorred homosexuality. Which is to say it is completely ando bjectively wrong, and you are being dogmatically wrong by adhering to it.

That website hardly provides a credible argument against an eternal universe.  It starts off with 1) The big bang.  I already detailed why the big bang is not the creation of the universe without detail, but I can go farther into detail if you'd like but the point is simple.  The big bang is not the creation of the universe, it's the beginning of our universe, it's merely an event from which everything that happened before such a time has no effect on what happened after.  So it's first supporting evidence is actually a theory which undermines it's own argument.  Off to a good start!

It's second piece of supporting evidence is the abudance of hydrogen...not much to be said about this one because it really doesn't prove anything.  They say that because stars constantly convert hydrogen to helium and that there's no reversible process (which probably isn't a true statement anyways, it's more likely that we don't know if there is no reversible process) along with the continuing abundance of hydrogen suggests that a creator is pumping more hydrogen in our universe to keep it going.  This argument really has not ground to stand on, it doesn't even have feet really.  There is no more hydrogen in the universe observed now than at any time before so there is no reason to assume there is more hydrogen now than in an earlier time of the universe.  So the argument itself quickly falls apart, there's just a lot of hydrogen in the universe, it's not growing by anyone's measurements though.

Then finally it says the irreversible decay of the universe in which they are using the second law of thermodynamics to try an insert the need for a creator into the universe.  This is a bit of a tricky little paragraph they've put together here, not in that it's hard to decipher but in that it's meant to mislead. 

"The second law of thermodynamics says that while the total amount of energy remains constant (the first law), the availability of usable energy in the universe is constantly declining (the second law). Apart from the intervention of a supernatural agent (God), the stars would have burned out and the universe would have run down like a clock with no one to wind it back up. The logical conclusion is that it cannot be true that an infinite amount of time has passed because the universe would have reached a cold and lifeless state of absolute equilibrium."

The wording deliberately implies that the second law of thermodynamics states that a supernatural agent is the only thing keeping the world running. Also there is so much wrong with this belief that I don't even know where to begin but I suggest you do some more research on the laws of thermodynamics.  This website seems like it was written by someone who glosssed over scientific texts looking for things they could manipulate to their aim, a great degree of cognitive dissonance must have been required to read up on the laws of thermodynamics and deliberately ignore the parts that didn't help them. From wikipedia

"In sciences such as biology and biochemistry the application of thermodynamics is well-established, e.g. biological thermodynamics. The general viewpoint on this subject is summarized well by biological thermodynamicist Donald Haynie; as he stated that, "any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics."^[25]}}"

Really you should read the whole wiki on the second law of thermodynamics at the very least.  Some good books for beginners on the subject of cosmogny and phsyics I would reccommend are A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, The Universe: From flat earth to quasars by Isaac Asimov, and Cosmos by Carl Sagan.

After it's first three points the website goes on and shows how little it's writer understands the scientific theories it uses as evidence.  They even use the underhanded tactic of taking quotes out of context such as the one from Hawking on the Anthropic principle.

Oh and anyone giving you the argument "irreducable complexity" doesn't know what they're talking about.  There isn't a single shred of evidence supporting that argument and a truckload against it.

You want me to argue on the side of infant torture? A point I don't agree with? It's bad that you want me to agree with that to try and prove my point, as it wouldn't add anything to your position and wouldn't add anything to my position. It's an attempt at character assassination, that's all.

What's baffling to me is that you just don't get it. Trying to get me to prove that torturing babies is not wrong just shows that you're confused and you seem to think I accept a different set of absolute morals, as opposed to relative morals. You did it by saying that I'd be cool with the cannibalism too.

I wouldn't be cool with it and that's the whole point. We have two separate sets of morals, and I'd be outraged at their different moral code. That's the whole point of relative morals.

Why do you seem to be confusing moral relativism with having a differing set of absolute morals?

You claim that I don't understand absolute morals, well you've shown to me that you don't get relative morals either (and sorry if I'm being rude, but I don't think you understand relative morals just as much as you claim I don't understand absolute morals).

I don't want to prove that torturing babies is correct, because I don't think it is.  But I do know that many people and many societies have accepted torturing babies, infants and children throughout history. A quick google search provided many examples. Heck there's even a whole wikipedia page that goes over infanticide* in societies that has been carried out throughout history to the modern day (source).

My argument doesn't rely on having to accept the position that other people hold, it relies on me proving that that position exists... and there it is on Wikipedia.

A whole article on infanticide in societies around the world. Different morals on infanticide in other parts of the world, it's exists, some people are sick by our standards but it's accepted it as theirs. It's there in plain black and white and for me that is case over. No absolute morals, because a variety of sides exist, even on the drastic example you wanted me to prove.

(* for my argument I accept infanticide as equal to torturing them)

I would like to note here as well that I started off with a drastic example, that being of murder and cannibalism, and yet you just discarded it; Despite me showing that another society have a different moral line they draw on murder and cannibalism than us. My point is that two or more moral lines can't be drawn if absolute morals were the case, and I see my example as proof of two clear lines existing.

...

Slavery has been anything but a grey area. There has always been a clearly defined line of what is acceptable, but the line has changed as societies progress. This could not be the  case with absolute morals.

Wait a bit man.

I just explained that by "absolute morals" Im refering to what wikipedia calls universal morals. I understand it can easily be mistaken for moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is a different debate altogether, it's not relevant here and it's not used to prove the existance of something supernatural like universal morals are.

It's unfortunate that I don't consistently use the term universal morals since "absolute" morals would be confused with moral absolutism.

And infant genital mutilation (which has a purpose, imagined or real that's up to debate) is not what I meant by torturing babies. Think "3 guys 1 hammer" and you might get what I mean.

If you can't defend that position (that torturing babies for fun is right) then you aren't a true advocate of relative morals. You may still believe that you adhere to moral relativism but you simply aren't in a strong position to object to my account of universal morals in a discussion like this.

Please tell me that you're kidding.

I don't have to stand up for their position, I just have to prove it exists (which I have done) and that's what makes morals relative... Are you really that blinkered by your position that you can't even see that?

Here's the definition of relative morals from legal-dictionary.com...

"The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation"

What exactly would proving that torturing babies is right do to prove relative morals? All I have to do is prove that people exist who do hold that moral position, and not hold it myself. That is more than enough evidence to prove absolute morals wrong

It says their in plain black and white that relative morals are dependant on the individual or the society. I don't have to accept the morals of other societies, I just have to prove they exist, which I have done.

You say I'm not in a strong position, but my argument is solid. Clearly completely different sets of morals exist in different societies, and that proves relative morals.

(Sorry for the brutal honesty in this paragraph) The only reason you want me to defend a position I don't hold and would add nothing to the debate is because you know that you're on your last legs, and so you 've made up a false position that you claim I have to hold in order to prove my point (when I don't have to hold it to prove my point at all). It's dishonest debating.

What you're referring to is cultural universals, not moral universals. Moral universals don't actually exist.

Again: you are absolutely wrong about this. There being a reason isn't the same thing as a thing being immoral. Generally they're seen as moral for that reason.

"Moral universals" would imply that every single person, ever, has held those morals. That's something thath as never been true, and is not true for any value you can come up with.

Even if there were moral universals (there aren't), it wouldn't be a cogent argument for the existence of God.

You are kidding right?