If you are correct then you should be able to demonstrate that your system is superior. It should demonstrably lead to more reliable moral decisions. - Me
I think this is an oversimplification. - John Mann
You keep using this phrase as an excuse to ignore every one of my arguments. Why? If I misrepresent your views correct me. I have accumulated many, many evidence-based arguments in this thread which you have not even attempted to answer.
There is nothing simplistic about my challenge.
You assert that our moral decisions ought to be rooted in the character of a good god. Your morality is "top-down". You start with things that you believe to be true about this absolute model of perfect morality, and then measure every possible action against that standard.
I propose that we can better make good moral decisions with a "bottom-up" method. We begin by gathering objective facts about the impact of our proposed actions. Our decisions are then based on how we can best enhance the well being of conscious creatures.
This method makes no reference to any ultimate or absolute standard or the supposed wishes of an almighty law-giver.
Let's imagine the lowest possible valley in the "moral landscape". This represents the maximum, pointless suffering for the maximum number of conscious beings. Please don't be tempted to obfuscate here, I am not describing suffering for a better purpose, just pointless, hopeless, abject misery for all.
All of our moral concerns are about moving away from this nadir.
Of course there will be times that we need to descend in order to reach a higher place - the temporary suffering of medical treatment for example - but a moral good is one that moves to a higher place in the moral landscape. One that contributes to the sum-total of well being.
I do not know any other way to make the distinction between absolute and objective morality more clear.
If your system of morality is superior to a secular one that takes no account of god then you should be able to powerfully demonstrate that this is so.
It is a perfectly simple challenge. One that I very much look forward to taking up later this evening.
Anyway we are already talking about abortion as an example of application/demonstration of our views on morality. We can continue to use this moral dilemma. You know my position I'm totally against abortion.
Actually we have not been talking about abortion at all. I have no interest in defending abortion.
We have been talking about stem-cell research and I am happy to use that as a good example of the difference between the practical results of morals based on an absolute perfect god and the one I am defending.
Over to you.