In addition to his endless ability to engage in ad hominem, exbeliever has also issued a challenge of sorts. He has stated that motion is something that is objective and yet not universal because motion is relative to a specific framework of reference.
Even if we grant that this is the case, it hardly demonstrates that exbeliver’s belief that morality is objective but not universal would follow from that. But in point of fact, exbeliever commits a category error when he brings up the idea of motion in the first place.
How is motion defined? It can only be defined as it relates to a specific “framework” (as exbeliever calls is). As such, it is impossible for the term “motion” to have any truth value to it beyond system-dependent terminology. Indeed, this is demonstrated by a simple thought experiment: If I imagine a ball in my mind and this ball “moves” from the right side of my field of vision to the left side of my field of vision, has the ball actually moved? Obviously not because the ball doesn’t actually exist and it is improper to use something that is system-dependent (the idea of physical motion) and apply it to something outside of the system (an imaginary ball).
Perhaps this is even easier to demonstrate by showing another example of something that is restricted to a specific relative idea, and that is the concept of “size.” How big is a foot? Most people will immediately say something like “12 inches” but this does not answer the question. Suppose that the universe is expanding at an astronomical rate, and not only is the universe expanding but all the matter inside the universe is also expanding at the same rate. This means that to those who are “in the system,” everything looks as if it is unchanging; but if one were to step “out of the system” and view the universe, the universe would be getting larger. Conversely, the universe could be shrinking and experience the same effect. The “size” of a foot therefore changes when you view it outside the system but it is unchanging when you view it inside the system.
Is there then a contradiction? Can a foot be both getting larger (or smaller) and be the same size at the same time? Indeed, at the same time but not in the same relationship. Instead, the concept of “size” is system-dependent, just as the concept of “motion” is. Because these concepts are system-dependent, one cannot use them as if they apply outside the system. That is, one cannot use a “foot” as a standard of measurement to determine the size of your imaginary ball. In the same way, one cannot use the concept of “motion” outside of the specific framework of physicality.
So, if one wants to make objective claims about motion, one must take into account not only the object that “moves” but also the system in which the object moves. It is improper to say “Object X is moving” as if it is an objective statement without referring to the system it is in–it is not an objective statement at all in such a case, and indeed it is not even a true proposition when the system is undefined. Instead, one can only say, “Object X exists in such a way that in system Y it is moving.” The objective claim, therefore, must take into account both the perceived action and the system as a whole in order for it to be objectively true.
So does this motion illustration actually help out exbeliever in any way on his trek toward atheistic morality? Not at all. In fact, it brings up even more problems than he realizes. If exbeliever is going to claim that morality is system-dependent like motion, then he must demonstrate 1) what system this is and 2) how God is in that system, for it is impossible for him to make the claim that God is immoral if God is not in the system (it is improper to use something that is created in the system to apply it to that which is outside the system).
On the other hand, if exbeliever is going to say that there is a moral truth that transcends the system, he must explain how his example of “motion” (which is obviously system-dependent) is relevant here. In either case, exbeliever is left with a lot more explaining to do than he cares to engage in. Granted, it is difficult to think on topic when you’re busy coming up with insults.
