Morality: Do you agree

[Nimos]

satan wants us to think that..
..he wants us to turn away from God, and be led astray.

Almighty God has no need .. He has nothing to lose.
We, on the other hand, have everything to lose.

Yet God does little to prevent it, it seems, if he thought that it was a huge issue.

 

[Bird123]

No that is not what im saying.

But rather the argument is that the atheist with a subjective moral system has no moral ground for judging others as it is merely an opinion, meaning that his opinion is without real value. Whereas the Muslim argue that it is not the case with an objective morality grounded in God, because it goes beyond opinion, God is the moral judge.


Ultimately that would be the case, but you would still be judged based on what God decided. So if you get it wrong, there would be a punishment. Furthermore, the assumption is obviously that, this Muslim's (the speaker) interpretation is correct and that all other Muslims agree with it. That is not something that he addresses in his speech. But the point he is making is as above.

Perhaps, people are choosing to value the petty things mankind holds so dear such as controlling, judging, condemning and punishing. Has religion corrupted the view? What purpose would be served by judging, condemning and punishing when God is going to teach His children above such petty things to a Higher Level? Eliminate the petty things and there is no need for hate.

Muslim's belief is that their moral ideas are God's Ideas. When do beliefs carry more importance than opinions based upon personal experience? This might sound funny but in this case, I would say God is siding with the atheists. God is about what is!! Believing and following has never ever been important to God.

That's what I see. It's very clear

 

[F1fan]

satan wants us to think that..
..he wants us to turn away from God, and be led astray.

That should make you wonder why God created Satan if satan ends up screwing with people's minds. Is that moral? Not to my mind.

Almighty God has no need .. He has nothing to lose.
We, on the other hand, have everything to lose.

Then God wouldn't think twice if we all killed each others, in your view of God.

 

[Koldo]

We can agree (how about) that "there is no basis for this" that you and others would find acceptable. At the same time, virtually every jurisdiction in the entire world has laws that their people have voted in resoundingly to outlaw murder, stealing, libel, and slander. There's greater unity on those morals than there is on whether the earth is flat.

Which points towards a biological basis as the shared source of morality. Which does not entail objective morality.

To me, saying that there's no objective right/wrong is and silly as saying the earth is flat. Sure, it's possible to present elaborate logical structures to defend either but imho they're bogus --but that's just the opinion of me & most people.

Flat Earth is cringe to people that have actually looked into the Science behind it. Moral relativism and non-cognitivism are not.

 

[Koldo]

Im not sure what you mean.

Atoms objectively exist even if dogs have no clue about them. The same goes with morality, I doubt animals think about this, the same way as humans do, but still, it exists based on how we humans understand morality and when we look at certain animals. But to say that humans have some how created morality in animals and whatever aliens out there, requires some sort of evidence why this would be the case, given our understanding of it and how the universe works.

Objective morality has zero to do with creating morality in animals and aliens.

Let's try to turn it around then.

Given the three rules:

1. He is all good.
2. He is all perfect.
3. He is all-knowing.

Explain to me how you see God having subjective morality?

Depends on how you understand the term 'good' when applied to God. If good is that which God wills then good is adherence to God's will. Meaning that 'good' is nothing more than God's subjective standard.

It's not exactly the same.

Let's say that we have a speed limit of 50 mph. That is true at this point in time. It doesn't matter whether you think it should be something else or not, meaning that this speed limit is objectively so. This speed limit is the perfect limit, God decided that. If God suddenly changed the speed limit to 40 mph, then clearly the 50 mph speed limit wasn't perfect. Meaning that God "screwed" up, doesn't change the fact that there is a speed limit, it was just not at the correct limit. However, this is not possible for God, if he is said to be perfect.

Changing the speed limit does not entail in itself that the former speed limit was incorrect. It might be the case that the perfect speed limit changes depending on the circunstances. Or it might even be the case that perfection doesn't apply to speed limits and that therefore the concept of a perfect speed limit is a mistaken assumption.

So it is not the same as a tree changing over time, because that is part of the objectivity about a tree that it grows and eventually dies. But this doesn't work with morality, because humans are said to be judged and punished for not aligning with God's moral standard, so if these changes humans have no clue whether they will be punished or not.

Whether God judges, or whether humans should have a clue about objective morality, has nothing to do with whether objective morality exists.

If we don't perceive it at all, then we wouldn't categorize it as morality in the first place. So we have to perceive it. And based on how we look at morality, there seem to be certain rules or things that we associate with being either good or bad. For instance, rape is bad, murder is bad and killing infants is bad.

Whether we would be able to perceive morality and categorize it as morality is not in any way whatsoever a requeriment for objective morality to exist. That would be like saying we need to perceive any given tree for it to exist.

 

[Augustus]

But in what sense would objective morality exist?
Let's consider the speed of light as per your example. You can say it exists because it describes how the light, which we both agree to objectively exist (right?), behaves.
(This is presuming we accept that rules of physics in themselves objectively exist.)
Let's say one objective moral rule is that rape is moral. This moral rule describes the behavior of what? Nothing. Objective moral rules are therefore completely unlike physics rules.

The point is that the standards for classification of an action as moral/immoral objectively exist.

In the game Red Dead Redemption 2 you have a good/evil meter that is based on your actions. The game mechanics continually judge your actions and give you an overall rating.

Do you believe this objectively exists? Would it objectively exist if it was in the code but not visible to players?

For me the answer is yes. If you disagree, why?

If a $60 video game can implement such a thing, why couldn't an all powerful God?

But that's the thing: I don't need to leave the system to create a new lottery.

Yes you do, this is the error in reasoning you've been making since the beginning.

You cannot create a new lottery within the existing lottery just by deciding you want to. You have to start a new lottery. which is external to the existing one.

A new lottery is a new system, just like you would need to create a new chess organisation if you wanted the king to move 5 places or a new football organisation if you wanted all players to be able to use their hands, which is why Rugby, NFL, etc are not. run by FIFA. despite all being 'football'.

Imagine for example the first person to create a lottery declared that his is the only lottery that can exist. His statement would only be meaningful if he were to enforce it effectively.

The God can enforce it by sending good people to heaven and bad people to hell.

Could God control the minds of everyone in a way that no one would abide by a moral system distinct from the one he originally devised? Yes. But we don't live in that universe. Would you count the only moral system that exists as being objective morality?

It's not about the universe we live in, I don't believe in God. It is about a universe that could hypothetically exist where everything was created according to a plan by an all powerful God.

But the only one that exists would be objective.

But it wouldn't take all people believing in it to make it objective. All it requires is an external standard for judging morality that treats each person the same and produces definitive outcomes based on this, as in the game Red Dead Redemption.

I don't agree with the morality in the game. Saying hello to enough people will make you good even if you murder dozens, but in the game this makes no difference. I kill people then say hello a lot if I want to have fun and get the good outcome.

It is the only moral system that exists in the closed system of the game, but not one I apply in real life when I exit that system.

If I did not exist outside of the game though, it would be the only one that matters regardless of my thoughts.

But is the existence of a judging mechanic equal to the existence of an objective morality?

In a closed system, yes.

What morality is is defined by the creator of the system. Just as chess rules are created by FIDE or football rules by FIFA.

 

[Augustus]

But the internal inconsistencies are still real and dangerous. Morality isn't static. It literally can not be.

In a hypothetical God created world, if morality evolved, do you think the standards by which behaviour would ultimately be judged would be based on God's plan or human free will?

 

[Nimos]

Objective morality has zero to do with creating morality in animals and aliens.

You asked me why humans couldn't be the creators of objective morality. So how would that not apply to other species, if it is supposed to be objective?

Depends on how you understand the term 'good' when applied to God. If good is that which God wills then good is adherence to God's will. Meaning that 'good' is nothing more than God's subjective standard.

Yes, but given the 3 conditions and the fact that you can't hold contradictive moral values at the same time, God like us would have to decide what is good and what is evil.

Meaning that you can't hold a moral that rape is good and rape is bad at the same time, under the same conditions/situation. And given that God has these 3 conditions, he is incapable of doing something which is not perfectly good. So whatever he "chooses" is per definition good and perfect, therefore he wouldn't change his mind otherwise what he started out choosing wouldn't have been perfectly good, to begin with, and would contradict these 3 conditions, so the morality he "decided" has to be objective.

Changing the speed limit does not entail in itself that the former speed limit was incorrect. It might be the case that the perfect speed limit changes depending on the circunstances. Or it might even be the case that perfection doesn't apply to speed limits and that therefore the concept of a perfect speed limit is a mistaken assumption.

Yes for humans, not God and morality, obviously speed limits are a weird example as it has nothing to do with morality. But humans could change the speed limit as we get wiser and learn from our mistakes that maybe it was too high, to begin with. God would already know this before the speed limit signs were even put up. You can't assign the same limitations to God as you would humans.

Imagine I was always right, no matter what, it was written in the very fabric of the Universe or whatever.

Then it wouldn't make sense for you to tell me that I could be wrong or apply the same logic to me as you would someone else that isn't always right, the same goes with the idea of God, no matter what he does it is perfectly good. That is part of the very nature of God.

Whether God judges, or whether humans should have a clue about objective morality, has nothing to do with whether objective morality exists.

That is true, but if objective morality is true and God created it, then you will be judged nonetheless according to those that believe.

Whether we would be able to perceive morality and categorize it as morality is not in any way whatsoever a requeriment for objective morality to exist.

No obviously not. But that is not what I'm saying either. If we are not aware that kicking a red ball is immoral we don't think of it as a moral issue in the first place. For us to do that, we need to perceive it as being a moral issue, to begin with, and then we can decide whether it is good or bad.

 

[Koldo]

You asked me why humans couldn't be the creators of objective morality. So how would that not apply to other species, if it is supposed to be objective?

It is one thing to apply to other species, yet another for it to be perceived by them. The former does not require the latter.

Yes, but given the 3 conditions and the fact that you can't hold contradictive moral values at the same time, God like us would have to decide what is good and what is evil.

Meaning that you can't hold a moral that rape is good and rape is bad at the same time, under the same conditions/situation. And given that God has these 3 conditions, he is incapable of doing something which is not perfectly good. So whatever he "chooses" is per definition good and perfect, therefore he wouldn't change his mind otherwise what he started out choosing wouldn't have been perfectly good, to begin with, and would contradict these 3 conditions, so the morality he "decided" has to be objective.

Your wording is not clear to me. Have you ever heard of the euthyphro dilemma? What's your answer to it? I need to understand what you are calling 'good'.

Yes for humans, not God and morality, obviously speed limits are a weird example as it has nothing to do with morality. But humans could change the speed limit as we get wiser and learn from our mistakes that maybe it was too high, to begin with. God would already know this before the speed limit signs were even put up. You can't assign the same limitations to God as you would humans.

Imagine I was always right, no matter what, it was written in the very fabric of the Universe or whatever.

Then it wouldn't make sense for you to tell me that I could be wrong or apply the same logic to me as you would someone else that isn't always right, the same goes with the idea of God, no matter what he does it is perfectly good. That is part of the very nature of God.

But you are still presuming there is such a thing as perfect speed limit for all times. Or even a perfect speed time at any time. There is no basis for this. Worse yet, if whatever God does is good just because God is doing it, then there is no reason why he couldn't set different speed limits across time: those would all be good acts, all equally perfect.

That is true, but if objective morality is true and God created it, then you will be judged nonetheless according to those that believe.


No obviously not. But that is not what I'm saying either. If we are not aware that kicking a red ball is immoral we don't think of it as a moral issue in the first place. For us to do that, we need to perceive it as being a moral issue, to begin with, and then we can decide whether it is good or bad.

Whether we will be judged and whether we are aware of what is moral has no relevancy on whether objective morality exists which is the crux of the issue.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That should make you wonder why God created Satan if satan ends up screwing with people's minds. Is that moral? Not to my mind..

satan is the original tempter .. we can all be devils .. so the question is "why did God create creatures capable of rebellion?"
..and that includes you and I.

Then God wouldn't think twice if we all killed each others, in your view of God.

Almighty God is not a person .. He is of infinite nature .. immorality is something that affects us, and not God.

 

[Koldo]

The point is that the standards for classification of an action as moral/immoral objectively exist.

In the game Red Dead Redemption 2 you have a good/evil meter that is based on your actions. The game mechanics continually judge your actions and give you an overall rating.

Do you believe this objectively exists? Would it objectively exist if it was in the code but not visible to players?

For me the answer is yes. If you disagree, why?

If a $60 video game can implement such a thing, why couldn't an all powerful God?

That's the thing: The good/evil meter in RDR2 isn't morality. It is just a meter.
We are right now able to create a meter similar to that game by assigning a value to each action a human may take, placing cameras around someone and assigning observers that will evaluate each action according to values we have provided. But that still wouldn't be a moral code in itself, neither objective nor subjective.

First of all, because a moral code is not merely descriptive, but rather prescriptive.
A moral code must necessarily revolve around what one should or should not do. How do we get from 'these actions assign negative values in this meter' to 'you should not do actions that assign negative values in this meter'?

Second, because without a mental relation between the meter and the perception of that meter representing morality, morality doesn't exist. If no one thinks of our meter as actually representing morality, not even us, in what sense could we say that it represents morality? It simply doesn't.

Yes you do, this is the error in reasoning you've been making since the beginning.

You cannot create a new lottery within the existing lottery just by deciding you want to. You have to start a new lottery. which is external to the existing one.

A new lottery is a new system, just like you would need to create a new chess organisation if you wanted the king to move 5 places or a new football organisation if you wanted all players to be able to use their hands, which is why Rugby, NFL, etc are not. run by FIFA. despite all being 'football'.

But we can factually create new organizations in our universe.

The God can enforce it by sending good people to heaven and bad people to hell.

No, that's not sufficient to enforce it. God would need to effectively prevent people from creating a distinct moral system. Think of it this way: Sending people to jail for creating a new chess organization with new chess rules is not sufficient to prevent the creation of those new rules. What actually prevents the creation of new rules is the mind control in a way that no one is going to think of new rules.

In a closed system, yes.

What morality is is defined by the creator of the system. Just as chess rules are created by FIDE or football rules by FIFA.

Judging is also present in subjective morality. Judging doesn't make morality objective.

 

[Nimos]

It is one thing to apply to other species, yet another for it to be perceived by them. The former does not require the latter.

Sorry, don't understand that.

Can you give an example using a human and a dog or something?

Your wording is not clear to me. Have you ever heard of the euthyphro dilemma? What's your answer to it? I need to understand what you are calling 'good'.

I didn't know the word, so had to look it up, but am aware of it now that I read it.

Given that there is only one God, there isn't really a dilemma here. So in this case, whatever God say or command is good, is good.

But you are still presuming there is such a thing as perfect speed limit for all times. Or even a perfect speed time at any time. There is no basis for this. Worse yet, if whatever God does is good just because God is doing it, then there is no reason why he couldn't set different speed limits across time: those would all be good acts, all equally perfect.

As I said using a speed limit is a bit weird because it isn't based on morality. So in that case you are correct. But in regard to morality, it would be highly unlikely or extremely weird if God thought that rape was wrong a week ago, but now it is very good. That logic doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense.

Whether we will be judged and whether we are aware of what is moral has no relevancy on whether objective morality exists which is the crux of the issue.

Agree, but that is not really the issue here. The original argument raised by the Muslim is that if subjective morality is true, there is no foundation for judging each other or to even care about somebodies else moral opinion because there is no right or wrong answer. It is merely your opinion vs mine. This would mean that you have no moral duties towards anyone or anything, besides what you personally believe to be true. If this is true, then it obviously raises some questions, such as what rights do you have to punish or judge me, just because you think my moral standard is wrong, when yours are equally flawed or made up?

By adding God to the equation, gives a foundation so we can measure it against the will of God because he created them according to him. Whether objective morality exists or not, is not really the main issue here, we are merely looking at them side by side assuming that both are equally valid options.

 

[Koldo]

Sorry, don't understand that.

Can you give an example using a human and a dog or something?

We can apply moral standards to dogs, regardless of whether dogs themselves can perceive morality.

I didn't know the word, so had to look it up, but am aware of it now that I read it.

Given that there is only one God, there isn't really a dilemma here. So in this case, whatever God say or command is good, is good.

Sure, buy why? That's the main point of the dilemma.
Is it because whatever God does is good, regardless of what it is? Or is it because God will always do what is good?
Imagine there is a set of good actions and a set of bad actions. Is God good because he will always do actions within the set of good actions and this set of good actions is outside of his control (it is what it is)? Or is God good because he can freely choose what actions are part of each set, and therefore he can/could change the set of good actions to be what he wants it to be?

As I said using a speed limit is a bit weird because it isn't based on morality. So in that case you are correct. But in regard to morality, it would be highly unlikely or extremely weird if God thought that rape was wrong a week ago, but now it is very good. That logic doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense.

He could definitely think that the morality of each action varies according to the time. The fact we don't think of it this way has no relevancy. And more importantly, depending on your answer to the dilemma, it might be related to something else: It is about God wanting different things in different moments. Just likes he wants a tree to change.

Agree, but that is not really the issue here. The original argument raised by the Muslim is that if subjective morality is true, there is no foundation for judging each other or to even care about somebodies else moral opinion because there is no right or wrong answer. It is merely your opinion vs mine. This would mean that you have no moral duties towards anyone or anything, besides what you personally believe to be true. If this is true, then it obviously raises some questions, such as what rights do you have to punish or judge me, just because you think my moral standard is wrong, when yours are equally flawed or made up?

By adding God to the equation, gives a foundation so we can measure it against the will of God because he created them according to him. Whether objective morality exists or not, is not really the main issue here, we are merely looking at them side by side assuming that both are equally valid options.

I am questioning the validity of declaring God and objective morality as a firm ground to make moral judgments.
It is like saying: Sorry my friend, I might not have a firm ground to make moral judgments and punish people...but neither do you.

 

[Nimos]

We can apply moral standards to dogs, regardless of whether dogs themselves can perceive morality.

Yes, but just because we can do that, doesn't mean that they are objectively true or that the dog "agrees".

Sure, buy why? That's the main point of the dilemma.
Is it because whatever God does is good, regardless of what it is? Or is it because God will always do what is good?
Imagine there is a set of good actions and a set of bad actions. Is God good because he will always do actions within the set of good actions and this set of good actions is outside of his control (it is what it is)? Or is God good because he can freely choose what actions are part of each set, and therefore he can/could change the set of good actions to be what he wants it to be?

It's probably both because there is no other authority than God, there is nothing equal to him so he doesn't follow the same rules as we do, or said in another way, perfect morality is part of God's character. How does this logically make sense, I have no clue, you would have to ask a believer for those details.

But my guess is that it would be something along those lines.

He could definitely think that the morality of each action varies according to the time. The fact we don't think of it this way has no relevancy. And more importantly, depending on your answer to the dilemma, it might be related to something else: It is about God wanting different things in different moments. Just likes he wants a tree to change.

This is becoming a strange talk

I don't think God wants anything like that, it wouldn't really make sense. If we assume that the main thing God wants is for humans to behave so they can get saved or whatever he wants (I honestly have no clue, as far as I know, it is not mentioned in the bible). Then one would assume that God already knew exactly how humans would get there and not make it up or change it along the way.

Also, I don't think God want anything personally, but rather he wants something from us, as that again would go against the nature of God. If God had desires he would not be perfect.

Again, I would have to refer you to a believer, because I'm merely guessing here, based on my knowledge of the bible. But whether believers agree with that I highly doubt

I am questioning the validity of declaring God and objective morality as a firm ground to make moral judgments.

Those are the rules set by those that believe in God. As I said above, morality is part of God's very character and is said to be all good, at least as I understand it. He doesn't answer to anything or anyone, everything that exists is created by him.

Its not because I disagree with you, given that I don't believe in God. But if we are to play with the idea and the rules set forth, this has to be so. As I see it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I suspect that some people may be reading "objective morality" and understanding it as meaning "static morality".

I will refrain in this post to consider whether it is possible to have non-static objective morality to point out instead that morality has to be dynamic and take specific circunstances into account if it is to have any significance and value at all.

Why? Because circunstances create and block possibilities of moral significance. Access to help of various kinds affects moral duties. Ability to communicate with different groups also does that. Even a change of residence may easily make moral possibilities and duties significantly different.

 

[Augustus]

That's the thing: The good/evil meter in RDR2 isn't morality. It is just a meter.

It is whatever the game designer says it is.

If it's designed to measure in game morality, then that is what it does.

First of all, because a moral code is not merely descriptive, but rather prescriptive.
A moral code must necessarily revolve around what one should or should not do. How do we get from 'these actions assign negative values in this meter' to 'you should not do actions that assign negative values in this meter'?

Because the designer designs it that way. That is the objective.

Second, because without a mental relation between the meter and the perception of that meter representing morality, morality doesn't exist. If no one thinks of our meter as actually representing morality, not even us, in what sense could we say that it represents morality? It simply doesn't.

If an all powerful god deliberately creates something, creates in humans the ability to perceive and understand something, judges people according to this something then it exists. It is real.

The same as a game mechanic exists.

You still don't seem to appreciate the difference between a designed, closed system and our undesigned, open system.

But we can factually create new organizations in our universe.

Case in point. It's not possible to make this argument unless you are still thinking of an open, godless world like ours rather than the hypothetical one designed by a God we are talking about.

A new club doesn't free you from the laws and rules imposed by God. It is still inside the system.

A new club requires you to exit the old club. Thus, a new morality requires you to exit the universe in which the Divinely created morality exists.

If we live in a world designed by a God, starting an 'atheist club' doesn't magically mean God no longer has any jurisdiction over us, can't smite us with a lightning bolt, etc.

No, that's not sufficient to enforce it. God would need to effectively prevent people from creating a distinct moral system. Think of it this way: Sending people to jail for creating a new chess organization with new chess rules is not sufficient to prevent the creation of those new rules. What actually prevents the creation of new rules is the mind control in a way that no one is going to think of new rules.

Not if the designer wants it that way.

You get free will, but you've been told what the rules are and what happens if you don't follow them. Morality is what God mandates it to be because the concept was created by this God for precisely this purpose.

Morality means acting in accordance with God's commands. Every single idea, concept, belief system, etc. was created by the God with a purpose.

You can't create a new morality only transgress that which is written in stone.

 

[Sand Dancer]

People are people, good and bad. Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. Society molds people. Desperate people can do horrible things, if they miss out on necessities, especially love.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Well, you are just you.

Some millionaires are devoting a great part of their fortunes to discover a way to prolong life. And most people get very happy when they listen some news about it.

I think quality is better than quantity. They should work on making everyone's lives quality lives.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, but just because we can do that, doesn't mean that they are objectively true or that the dog "agrees".

Same goes for any purported objective morality. Be it from God or humans.

It's probably both because there is no other authority than God, there is nothing equal to him so he doesn't follow the same rules as we do, or said in another way, perfect morality is part of God's character. How does this logically make sense, I have no clue, you would have to ask a believer for those details.

But my guess is that it would be something along those lines.

It can't be both. Logic precludes both alternatives from being true at the same time.

This is becoming a strange talk

I don't think God wants anything like that, it wouldn't really make sense. If we assume that the main thing God wants is for humans to behave so they can get saved or whatever he wants (I honestly have no clue, as far as I know, it is not mentioned in the bible). Then one would assume that God already knew exactly how humans would get there and not make it up or change it along the way.

Also, I don't think God want anything personally, but rather he wants something from us, as that again would go against the nature of God. If God had desires he would not be perfect.

Again, I would have to refer you to a believer, because I'm merely guessing here, based on my knowledge of the bible. But whether believers agree with that I highly doubt

This doesn't have much relevancy to the issue at hand. An objective morality (Assuming it could exist in the first place) could be a changing morality. Whether you think that God doesn't want his objective morality to be so is another subject entirely.

Those are the rules set by those that believe in God. As I said above, morality is part of God's very character and is said to be all good, at least as I understand it. He doesn't answer to anything or anyone, everything that exists is created by him.

Its not because I disagree with you, given that I don't believe in God. But if we are to play with the idea and the rules set forth, this has to be so. As I see it.

And what I am saying is that regardless of whether God exists, a morality created by him is not in any shape or form any more objective than a morality created by us.

 

[Koldo]

It is whatever the game designer says it is.

If it's designed to measure in game morality, then that is what it does.

The fact that someone can label it as morality doesn't make it morality. You are mixing up form (name) with content.

Because the designer designs it that way. That is the objective.

Where is the 'should' in the design?

If an all powerful god deliberately creates something, creates in humans the ability to perceive and understand something, judges people according to this something then it exists. It is real.

The same as a game mechanic exists.

You still don't seem to appreciate the difference between a designed, closed system and our undesigned, open system.

Your conclusion is in your premises. If God created something... then it exists. The rest of your premises is absolutely irrelevant. What is under dispute is exactly whether he could create objective morality in the first place.

Case in point. It's not possible to make this argument unless you are still thinking of an open, godless world like ours rather than the hypothetical one designed by a God we are talking about.

A new club doesn't free you from the laws and rules imposed by God. It is still inside the system.

A new club requires you to exit the old club. Thus, a new morality requires you to exit the universe in which the Divinely created morality exists.

If we live in a world designed by a God, starting an 'atheist club' doesn't magically mean God no longer has any jurisdiction over us, can't smite us with a lightning bolt, etc.

This is a HUGE problem: You are mixing up jurisdiction with morality. They are completely unrelated concepts.

Jurisdiction is about who has the power to create and enforce rules. It doesn't have anything to do with who created what either.

Not if the designer wants it that way.

You get free will, but you've been told what the rules are and what happens if you don't follow them. Morality is what God mandates it to be because the concept was created by this God for precisely this purpose.

Morality means acting in accordance with God's commands. Every single idea, concept, belief system, etc. was created by the God with a purpose.

You can't create a new morality only transgress that which is written in stone.

Only because someone said so?
You are not showing the logical necessity.