Your best argument that god exists

[kepha31]

You are only assuming your idea of values and absolutism then blasting every culture for not agreeing.

Where did I do that?

More so when one looks at the Catholic world we see how fast this idea of absolutism falls apart into relative views and projection.

Through the lens of Newsweek?

Holocaust was bad but the Crusades were not? The same Crusades endorsed by the Papacy and your so-called supporters of absolutism.

The Holocaust was bad, the Crusades were necessary defensive wars. The cultural conditioning after 500 years of propaganda has even influenced the president of the U.S. Crusade myths are no longer taught in universities. Why do irrelevant Crusade myths always come up? So who are the cultural dictators that has the power to influence public opinion that is not true?

Yes we all presume our own culture's morality is true, you have proven this yourself. What you have not proven is that your view is objective fact and not merely another cultural view you easily poke at when it is not your own. Humans have been doing this for centuries and will continue to do so as long as people such as yourself believe that their way is the only way.

It doesn't work that way. Moral and objective truth exists, and it is cross cultural. I don't impose anything, I propose, similar to giving food to a hungry person. The food is not imposed.

The thread is called "your best argument that God exists."
I gave the Resurrection as evidence.
The Myth Theory countered my evidence.
I countered the Myth Theory as being born from the virus of modernism/relavism.
I offered further evidence for the existence of God, which is the existence of man, made in His image.
This was, in a sense, countered with god(s) being made in the image of man.

 

[WirePaladin]

Equate the two "religions" again and I'll have to put you on my ignore list.

I welcome the honor. (Actually, I beat you to it.)

Same god different prophet big whoopie. BOTH assert the existence of a supernatural sky daddy, daily consumed by the actions of individual members of one species on one planet in a galaxy with billions and universe with billions of galaxies. Now THAT'S a fairy tale.

Believers in both mythologies (one really just petty differences between them) can, have, do, kill to impose their nonsense on others. Even to such silly extremes as killing EACH OTHER of how many fingers to use when making the sing of the cross. BTW, every hear of the Red Cresent? As for religious wars your source is naive. ALL of Europe's wars had a religious component. And referring to the Crusades as defensive is laughable. Even Urban didn't claim that. The Call of the Crusades | History Today

As for having no justification for morality we do - our well-being. And that is both good and sufficient. No mythological monsters needed. Or wanted.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The problem here is that the statement assumes there are no right or wrong opinions. An opinion cannot be true and another false at the same time. This argument assumes what it is supposed to be proving; that is, values differ from culture to culture. It doesn’t. What they differ about is what they think value is or their opinions on values. Opinions can be wrong. If one culture believes that murdering six million Jews is morally right, it doesn’t make it so. Also, if this is true, then how can we condemn the Nazis? If there is no objective standard to apply to, then we ought not to condemn them because it would be meaningless. The only reason why we can condemn some things such as the holocaust is that we presuppose an objective or absolute standard that everyone ought to apply to.
The Myth Theory, as well as atheism, has no objective standard to measure values in cultures. Furthermore, since relativism has so permeated our cultural paradigms, it has influenced the spawning of the myth theory which began around the 1900's, pathetically late in coming.

Oh, I know what the thread was about. I was just excited that some people was talking about special relativity, which I find much more fascinating than any of this other stuff...

Anyway, morals are absolutely relative. The only foundation that we have for majorily shared or accepted moral values is consensus. The Nazis were wrong in their actions not just because it's wrong to systematically kill one particular group or race of people, but because the world agreed that it was not acceptable behavior and the outlying culture (that of the Nazis) continued to perform an act that was nearly unanimously considered unacceptable.

Consider for example the fine line between war and genocide. At what point do the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties from one nation during a war get labeled genocide instead of collateral damage? The fact that the Nazis did something on a grander scale than most doesn't make it any more wrong. There's no real difference between something terrible and something "terribler". They're both still terrible, right? The global human community decided and accepted that such behavior was wrong, so it was wrong. Similarly, the ethnocentric war camps in the United States at the same time, were less "wrong" because of the general acceptance of them by our culture. They're ultimately the same thing, right? Minus a little bit of murder.

The only way that you can defend this idea of moral absolutism is by founding your morals on something tangible. Simply exclaiming that there is a god and that this particular god is the foundation of objective moral values isn't good enough.

 

[Nakosis]

Oh, I know what the thread was about. I was just excited that some people was talking about special relativity, which I find much more fascinating than any of this other stuff...

Anyway, morals are absolutely relative. The only foundation that we have for majorily shared or accepted moral values is consensus. The Nazis were wrong in their actions not just because it's wrong to systematically kill one particular group or race of people, but because the world agreed that it was not acceptable behavior and the outlying culture (that of the Nazis) continued to perform an act that was nearly unanimously considered unacceptable.

Consider for example the fine line between war and genocide. At what point do the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties from one nation during a war get labeled genocide instead of collateral damage? The fact that the Nazis did something on a grander scale than most doesn't make it any more wrong. There's no real difference between something terrible and something "terribler". They're both still terrible, right? The global human community decided and accepted that such behavior was wrong, so it was wrong. Similarly, the ethnocentric war camps in the United States at the same time, were less "wrong" because of the general acceptance of them by our culture. They're ultimately the same thing, right? Minus a little bit of murder.

The only way that you can defend this idea of moral absolutism is by founding your morals on something tangible. Simply exclaiming that there is a god and that this particular god is the foundation of objective moral values isn't good enough.

If the Nazi had won the war then their actions would have been accepted as moral. Might makes right. Your morals are what they are only because they lost. So the foundation for morality is survival. Whatever the right action which leads to survival.

There maybe many other actually factors in winning and loosing but the winning side determine the behavior of survival so basically it equals might making right.

So it doesn't make any morality objective, just makes it relative to survival. Relativity wins.

 

[Ouroboros]

Don't know what this has to do with this thread but...

Speed of light not so constant after all | Science News

They slowed it down. Not sure that would suggest that the top-speed isn't still the top-speed.

Actually, I learned years ago that light is traveling slower than the particles in the coolant of a nuclear reactor, or something like that. Light doesn't always travel at c (max speed of light), basically. Which the experiment above suggests.

Perhaps the emDrive (or whatever it's called) by JPL is something different.

 

[kepha31]

I welcome the honor. (Actually, I beat you to it.)

Same god different prophet big whoopie. BOTH assert the existence of a supernatural sky daddy, daily consumed by the actions of individual members of one species on one planet in a galaxy with billions and universe with billions of galaxies. Now THAT'S a fairy tale.

Believers in both mythologies (one really just petty differences between them) can, have, do, kill to impose their nonsense on others. Even to such silly extremes as killing EACH OTHER of how many fingers to use when making the sing of the cross. BTW, every hear of the Red Cresent? As for religious wars your source is naive. ALL of Europe's wars had a religious component. And referring to the Crusades as defensive is laughable. Even Urban didn't claim that. The Call of the Crusades | History Today

As for having no justification for morality we do - our well-being. And that is both good and sufficient. No mythological monsters needed. Or wanted.

Take out the politics and quest for power and there isn't much left to blame "crusades" on Christians, if you bother to read your own link. Your post amounts to revisionist hate speech. "ALL of Europe's wars had a religious component" is your opinion, and contradicts the FACTS in the Encyclopedia of Wars quoted previously.

"Religion is a powerful motivator, and thus is often invoked in wartime, but the real reasons most wars have been fought have nothing to do with it. Instead, they have to do with political control—either allowing certain political leaders to gain or remain in power (e.g., who is the rightful heir to the throne) or they have to do with gaining political control of resources (e.g., land, money, food supplies, transportation and trade routes) or they have to do with a particular leader’s ambitions (i.e., being remembered as a great man, or not being remembered as a weak man). When leaders aren’t being totally naked about those things, they dress them up with national pride or religion, but ultimately they are not at the root." - James Akin.

The American Revolution, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Korea; none of these wars was fought for religious reasons. In fact, the bloodiest and most deadly wars of recent history were demonstrably motivated by something other than religion: out of whack nationalism (WWI), anti-religious fascism (WWII), and atheistic Communism (Korea, Vietnam, the atrocities of Stalin and Mao).

"mythological monsters" is precisely what I mean when I say atheists have created a god after their own image, in order to dismiss it.​

 

[kepha31]

Oh, I know what the thread was about. I was just excited that some people was talking about special relativity, which I find much more fascinating than any of this other stuff...

Anyway, morals are absolutely relative. The only foundation that we have for majorily shared or accepted moral values is consensus. The Nazis were wrong in their actions not just because it's wrong to systematically kill one particular group or race of people, but because the world agreed that it was not acceptable behavior and the outlying culture (that of the Nazis) continued to perform an act that was nearly unanimously considered unacceptable.

Consider for example the fine line between war and genocide. At what point do the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties from one nation during a war get labeled genocide instead of collateral damage? The fact that the Nazis did something on a grander scale than most doesn't make it any more wrong. There's no real difference between something terrible and something "terribler". They're both still terrible, right? The global human community decided and accepted that such behavior was wrong, so it was wrong. Similarly, the ethnocentric war camps in the United States at the same time, were less "wrong" because of the general acceptance of them by our culture. They're ultimately the same thing, right? Minus a little bit of murder.

The only way that you can defend this idea of moral absolutism is by founding your morals on something tangible. Simply exclaiming that there is a god and that this particular god is the foundation of objective moral values isn't good enough.

"the foundation of objective moral values" is inherent in every human being, which atheism seeks to re-define. I do not need to exclaim that human beings exist.

Relativism teaches that there are no moral absolutes, that there is no such thing as truly good or evil actions – actions have consequences which are pleasant or unpleasant for individuals, but there is no objective standard for what is good and bad. Relativism is a flawed notion because it denies that humanity has an essential nature. It also denies the existence of any absolute moral laws, which implies the denial of an absolute moral authority (God).

Relativism is, in fact, a complete denial of morality. It denies the idea that there is any sort of morality that can be discussed or debated – all actions are simply personally judged to have a pleasant effect or unpleasant effect. Actions which result in pleasure are seen as being good, no matter how much pain they may cause others.

A relativist can sometimes be convinced of the wrongness of his position by considering how he would feel if the positions were reversed for a specific event – relativists are fundamentally very selfish individuals, however, and are generally speaking inconsistent. Their actions are judged according to relative morality, but actions which harm them are considered to be evil.

All atheists lack an experience of God which is sufficient to overcome any reasons and arguments. An atheist may have had some experience of God, but it has not been sufficiently clear – or on his terms – to overcome his disbelief in God. Many atheists have never sought an experience of God, instead choosing to simply assume that God does not exist from their own logic. Others have chosen to seek God, but have put conditions on what they will believe – they require a God who manifests on their terms, not His.

 

[kepha31]

If the Nazi had won the war then their actions would have been accepted as moral. Might makes right. Your morals are what they are only because they lost. So the foundation for morality is survival. Whatever the right action which leads to survival.

There maybe many other actually factors in winning and loosing but the winning side determine the behavior of survival so basically it equals might making right.

So it doesn't make any morality objective, just makes it relative to survival. Relativity wins.

Might makes right. Relativity wins.

 

[jonathan180iq]

"the foundation of objective moral values" is inherent in every human being, which atheism seeks to re-define. I do not need to exclaim that human beings exist.

Relativism teaches that there are no moral absolutes, that there is no such thing as truly good or evil actions – actions have consequences which are pleasant or unpleasant for individuals, but there is no objective standard for what is good and bad. Relativism is a flawed notion because it denies that humanity has an essential nature. It also denies the existence of any absolute moral laws, which implies the denial of an absolute moral authority (God).

While moral realtivism may imply that there is no god, it certianly does not deny that morals exist. The very foundation of the idea is that morals, which must exist in order for this idea to be had, are relative... Isn't that a pretty grand admission that there are, in deed, morals?

Until you or anyone else on the planet can prove that there is a higher power, then any arguments for objective morals deriving their supremacy from such a being a kind of pointless, aren't they?
And similarly, if your argument for the existence of God rests on the assertion that objective moral values exist, then that's circular reasoning, Dr. William Lane Craig...

Relativism is, in fact, a complete denial of morality. It denies the idea that there is any sort of morality that can be discussed or debated – all actions are simply personally judged to have a pleasant effect or unpleasant effect. Actions which result in pleasure are seen as being good, no matter how much pain they may cause others.

Nope. I'm a moral relativist and I agree and readily admit that morals exist.
I'm also, like most people, not a selfish ******* and I care about how my actions affect others.

Next.

A relativist can sometimes be convinced of the wrongness of his position by considering how he would feel if the positions were reversed for a specific event – relativists are fundamentally very selfish individuals, however, and are generally speaking inconsistent. Their actions are judged according to relative morality, but actions which harm them are considered to be evil.

Empathy is present is many different animals. Morality and empathy are not limited to human beings.

Also, your assertion is baseball, since I'm a relativist and you're obviously not talking about me, so...

All atheists lack an experience of God which is sufficient to overcome any reasons and arguments. An atheist may have had some experience of God, but it has not been sufficiently clear – or on his terms – to overcome his disbelief in God. Many atheists have never sought an experience of God, instead choosing to simply assume that God does not exist from their own logic. Others have chosen to seek God, but have put conditions on what they will believe – they require a God who manifests on their terms, not His.

So naturally only you and a handful of others who agree with your position know the real god, right? Is that essentially what you're saying? Your arguments for god and against atheists must naturally be the most correct ones... What are "his terms", specifically?

 

[Nakosis]

Might makes right. Relativity wins.

Yes, ask each of those fellows on top if they believe they are doing the right thing. Of course if you kill the opposition, who's going to oppose you.

Your morals don't mean anything unless you can enforce them. There is idealism and then there's reality. I like your idealism fine but it doesn't change reality.

 

[Nakosis]

Relativism teaches that there are no moral absolutes, that there is no such thing as truly good or evil actions – actions have consequences which are pleasant or unpleasant for individuals, but there is no objective standard for what is good and bad. Relativism is a flawed notion because it denies that humanity has an essential nature. It also denies the existence of any absolute moral laws, which implies the denial of an absolute moral authority (God).

Take a look at the image you posted and tell me again how humanity has an essential nature.

Relativism is, in fact, a complete denial of morality. It denies the idea that there is any sort of morality that can be discussed or debated – all actions are simply personally judged to have a pleasant effect or unpleasant effect. Actions which result in pleasure are seen as being good, no matter how much pain they may cause others.

I don't deny the morals exist. Just saying the morals which do exists are relative. Even yours.
Even in my personal morals there is no absolute. They depend heavily on the situation. I would steal or lie to protect someone I felt I needed to protect. Both normally are immoral actions for me.

Would I kill? Maybe, it'd be the last thing I'd want to do. But if I did it'd be because I felt justified in doing so. And you would judge me for your own reasons without knowing why I did it. Morals are just so relative.

 

[kepha31]

While moral realtivism may imply that there is no god, it certianly does not deny that morals exist. The very foundation of the idea is that morals, which must exist in order for this idea to be had, are relative... Isn't that a pretty grand admission that there are, in deed, morals?

Yes, but the fact that there are morals does not explain why anyone should be moral.

In order for our conscience to tell us what we ought to do, there has to be a subconscious mind. The subconscious mind is basically a temptation. There are two kinds of temptations. One is telling us what we literally should not do. We should not steal because we know it's wrong. Another is telling us what we should do. We should help out one another because we know it is the right thing to do. Both will come up to our conscience and the conscience will tell us that we should ought to do what is not right and what is right. Who will refute this argument? Everyone had an experience of this. The problem is why it happens. I believe that is what they should try to answer, instead of answering why we should be moral.
Why Be Moral? -- Evangelical Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy,Spirituality​

Until you or anyone else on the planet can prove that there is a higher power, then any arguments for objective morals deriving their supremacy from such a being a kind of pointless, aren't they?

When God made the world, He gave man free will. Our conscience directs us to conform to the Law. We however, have the free will to either obey it or not. Once we disobey the Law over and over, we become tired and we ignore the guilt. This is why we would hear the argument of "no moral absolutes." These people believe that right and wrong is a conformity to a person's feelings instead. Let us examine why they say this.

As I have written before, people ask "why be moral?" because they cannot keep up with the Law. So instead of adjusting themselves to the Law, they adjust the Law. For example, a person would say, "I don't have to study the multiplication table because I don't feel like it." They would not feel this if they can do what they ought to do.

All they are doing is picking and choosing from the objective standard what they want to keep. There can only be morality and ethics when there are ones who cannot keep it. The reason why there is bravery is because there are cowards. Sacrifice is possible when there is such a thing as selfishness.

I would love to hear the reason why skeptics "feel" what is right because this is an excuse for not being able to follow the Law. I have not heard a good reason why people believe in subjective standards. For example: the purpose of food is to fill one's body so he won't be hungry. If a person says an apple pie is not good because it "tastes bad," is it bad? Well, an apple pie is still food and it makes a person full.

The subjective standard therefore is derived from the objective standard. Anything beyond the Law is wrong and anything less is wrong. Just as less food would make a person still be hungry, and too much food would make the person sick. Just as less rain would not help the crops, and too much rain will destroy the crops as well. Everything needs to be perfect just as He is Perfect (Matt 5:48).
Law of Nature -- Evangelical Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy,Spirituality​

And similarly, if your argument for the existence of God rests on the assertion that objective moral values exist, then that's circular reasoning, Dr. William Lane Craig...

Accusing Dr. William Lane Craig of circular reasoning is your subjective opinion, please provide objective data to support it.

Nope. I'm a moral relativist and I agree and readily admit that morals exist.

Not once did I say that relativists or atheists do not have morals.

So naturally only you and a handful of others who agree with your position know the real god, right? Is that essentially what you're saying? Your arguments for god and against atheists must naturally be the most correct ones... What are "his terms", specifically?

A handful? Every culture in every era of history has or had some kind of belief system. What does that say about the nature of human beings, to recognize the existence of something greater than themselves? You get out of that by re-defining what a human being is. In our day, about 3% of the population are atheistic. The real handful are the atheists making an extraordinary claim, but exempt themselves from providing any extraordinary evidence (which they cannot do).

What are "his terms", specifically?

Hear and respond to His calling or continue to stuff your ears.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, but the fact that there are morals does not explain why anyone should be moral.

In order for our conscience to tell us what we ought to do, there has to be a subconscious mind. The subconscious mind is basically a temptation. There are two kinds of temptations. One is telling us what we literally should not do. We should not steal because we know it's wrong. Another is telling us what we should do. We should help out one another because we know it is the right thing to do. Both will come up to our conscience and the conscience will tell us that we should ought to do what is not right and what is right. Who will refute this argument? Everyone had an experience of this. The problem is why it happens. I believe that is what they should try to answer, instead of answering why we should be moral.
Why Be Moral? -- Evangelical Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy,Spirituality
​

​

Why we are moral is easy. It's genetics/cultural/nurturing. We've a conscious/unconscious mind a lot of times desire gets programmed in by genetics and nurturing. So changes in genetics and nurturing affect your subconscious will. Analytic consciousness also plays its part in overriding subconscious morality.

Understanding you are not consciously aware of your unconscious programming. It seems to come from some unknown place. People explain it by saying it was placed there by God.

 

[kepha31]

Take a look at the image you posted and tell me again how humanity has an essential nature.

Normal people find the image I posted appalling. The actions of the ISIS are immoral, and we base that conclusion from an objective standard that most normal human beings have (that slaughtering innocent people is wrong) It is not some airy principle that religious people dreamed up, objective morality is true. If morality is relative, then by what standard do we say the ISIS is wrong? After all, it's right for them. That's your "relativity" for ya.

I don't deny the morals exist. Just saying the morals which do exists are relative. Even yours.
Even in my personal morals there is no absolute. They depend heavily on the situation. I would steal or lie to protect someone I felt I needed to protect. Both normally are immoral actions for me.

Not for me. Stealing or lying to protect someone from harm are not immoral actions.

Would I kill? Maybe, it'd be the last thing I'd want to do. But if I did it'd be because I felt justified in doing so. And you would judge me for your own reasons without knowing why I did it. Morals are just so relative.

I would leave it up to a courtroom to weigh the evidence and motives. There are times when killing is justifiable (such as self defense, or protecting children from an unjust aggressor) and there are times, though rare, when war is justified.

 

[outhouse]

There is something built into each human being. I like the term "divine stamp".

No, that is unsubstantiated wishful thinking.


It is called however human decency, and no religion is required for such action.

 

[outhouse]

If God doesn't exist, then neither does the natural law

Unsubstantiated rhetoric

Nature does not rely on mythology.

 

[kepha31]

No, that is unsubstantiated wishful thinking.

In the context of the quote, I was explaining that everyone has a conscience.

"Why do people do good things? Because we have a conscience that tells us right from wrong. Why would total strangers of any or no religion, risk their lives to save any stranger from a house fire or a car wreck? It happens every day. There is something built into each human being. I like the term "divine stamp". The point is, it is a matter of universal agreement that human beings have a conscience (often confused with emotions). The question is why be moral if we don't have one. Endorsing atheism makes it impossible to offer any rational arguments for why one should be moral, i.e. do good and avoid evil." - me. ​

Offering a rational argument why one should be moral is hard, offering cheap shots is easy.

It is called however human decency, and no religion is required for such action.

We experience morality within our person. Now, that experience either tells us something about reality outside ourselves, or it does not. If it does not, then the two phrases: "murder is worse than forgiveness" and "ice cream is better than cold pizza" have equivocal "truth" as it were.

This is because, if our experiences in the moral realm do not correspond to some transcendent aspect of reality, then they do not correspond to anything outside the self at all, except brute matter and physicality. Hence, your love of ice cream and the color green and even forgiveness and empathy are all the same sort of thing - personal preferences.

Again, all value becomes relative to the individual, who is his or her own arbiter of moral truth. In such a system, Hitler is no more right in what he says than Jesus, or, for the matter of argument's sake, I have no more right than you, in any of your value statements. Interestingly, in such a system, an atheist cannot give a consistent reason as to why another should not believe in God, since "should" and "oughts" fall outside the realm of objective, common truths about reality.

A moral system is basically an application or acceptance of the objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[kepha31]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric
Nature does not rely on mythology.

I never said it did, and I used the term "natural law" which has nothing to do with trees and flowers.

A pillar of the (C-word) set of laws is its understanding of natural moral law, which addresses laws that aren’t written but nevertheless known by all men and women who have the use of reason. It uses basic common sense, prudence, and justice.

Moral law is natural because it’s known by reason — not written in stone or on paper, like the Commandments or the Bible. It’s moral because it applies only to moral acts — actions of human beings that involve a free act of the will.

 

[Bunyip]

I never said it did, and I used the term "natural law" which has nothing to do with trees and flowers.

A pillar of the (C-word) set of laws is its understanding of natural moral law, which addresses laws that aren’t written but nevertheless known by all men and women who have the use of reason. It uses basic common sense, prudence, and justice.

Moral law is natural because it’s known by reason — not written in stone or on paper, like the Commandments or the Bible. It’s moral because it applies only to moral acts — actions of human beings that involve a free act of the will.

In your cartoon, why is Jesus blaming the youth on all of the evils his father created? Why blame the victim?

 

[Shad]

Where did I do that?

The idea of absolute morality is well know to anyone that has even a passing knowledge of Catholicism.

Through the lens of Newsweek?

No, just studying the history of Europe along with how various views of what is moral now were not considered immoral in the past or only applied to the in-group. Such as slavery of Christians was considered immoral while enslaving non-Christians was acceptable.

The Holocaust was bad, the Crusades were necessary defensive wars. The cultural conditioning after 500 years of propaganda has even influenced the president of the U.S. Crusade myths are no longer taught in universities. Why do irrelevant Crusade myths always come up? So who are the cultural dictators that has the power to influence public opinion that is not true?

Defensive Wars can still result a horrors from the men which held to your concept of objection morality. It didn't stop the events during the Siege of Jerusalem as during this time the scope of morality only applied to those within the in-group. Which is just as I said, people made all sorts of excuses and rationalizations to make what would be considered to them an immoral action not immoral. They are Pagans, Muslims, etc. Beside the idea the Crusades were defensive wars is apologetic.

These were religious wars as the Seljuks were never a threat to Europe. To be a defensive war one should actually be under threat. The Seljuks were busy fighting each other a decade before the First Crusade even started. The land it fought over was in the hands of Muslims for centuries with little concern from Europe for centuries. More so the same Papacy turned a blind eye to the Norman conquests of Byzantine in Sicily and southern Italy. The wars were about personal ambition, religion and the schism of 1055 more than concern about a waxing Empire.

Even a passing glance at history shows that many in the Papacy and Nobility were never motivated to help Byzantine for it's 3 centuries of waxing and waning

It doesn't work that way. Moral and objective truth exists, and it is cross cultural. I don't impose anything, I propose, similar to giving food to a hungry person. The food is not imposed.

And I see a vast amount of rationalizations across cultures giving raise to calling an immoral act moral thus separation between these cross cultural sets of morals.

The thread is called "your best argument that God exists."
I gave the Resurrection as evidence.
The Myth Theory countered my evidence.
I countered the Myth Theory as being born from the virus of modernism/relavism.
I offered further evidence for the existence of God, which is the existence of man, made in His image.
This was, in a sense, countered with god(s) being made in the image of man.

The evidence of the Resurrection is hearsay.
I do not accept the Myth Theory, if you mean Jesus, so we agree
The existences of man is only evidence of our existence. It is no more evidence of God than it is evidence of Aliens. Your point is equal to any seeding idea people have thought of, It is not deductively valid. It is also only based on a religious text rather than any form of reasoning. Likewise you can only infer attributes of God by drawing upon and contrasting against man rather than by observations of the subject itself.