Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

the whole point of the religion established by the God of Abraham is to bring about the messiah to save mankind

---

That's not clear at all in the Torah and the messianic figure in the Nevi'im is not the ultimate point of Jewish worship. It's a different figure than what Christians have turned it into.

Sheol is not Hell. You seem to admit that without fully admitting it. Its nature changes even in the Biblical text, but it's never described in any way similar to the Christian Hell. The notion of an eternal lake of fire ruled by Satan is not a Jewish concept.

---

We always go back to this. Modern judiasm is messianic scrubbed version of a 2nd temple judiasm that tries to act like Christ didn't even come. Just as much as you ascribe the early church for reading a messiah into the OT, the Pharisees took it upon themselves to blot out a messiah in their interpretation. The new testament is the textual corpus in favor of Jesus, the talmud is the textual corpus that tries to ignore jesus and that God destroyed the second temple, and that there was not a repeat of the cycle of prophecy or prophets after the second temple destruction.

You know the scarlet thread placed on the scapegoat on the day of atonement stopped turning white the year jesus died right? That for the last 40 years (from when the temple stood after Christ to its tumbling) the pharisee priests were losing their minds that God was not longer accepting their sacrifice. Its in the Talmud. Conveniently ignored.

Back to your original statement, with each age there are different, but similar places for us as recipients of God's judgement. What is revealed is enough for us to turn to God, repent, and work out our salvation in this life, but not enough for us to fully know or define. Hell is not sheol. But sheol doesn't exist as it did before Jesus. The righteous and unrighteous are immediately sorted upon death. In states that are preeminent of their final destinations. The lake of fire is for satan and his demons.

Go ask your modern jewish friends what the main purpose of their religion is nowadays anyway. What salvation is, isn't, who gets it, where people who don't get it go, who gets to sit on the throne made for the Son of Man, who is the messiah. And then ask them if they think their beliefs about God would line up with second temple jews.

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

At this point the question isn't whether a decline is happening, but how fast it's accelerating.

---

And. . . 'how do we react to the change?' I think this is a question that evokes a lot of different responses and even emotions.

---

Agree. As a Christian, I honestly do not know what more can be done. The Gospel has never been more widely spread or known. Nobody can force someone to believe.

I will continue to love, pray, witness, serve, and persevere. I believe God is totally sovereign and can change this at any time. And there is a purpose for it.

There will always be a remnant. I stand on God's promises.

---

Our church (us) has to continue to evolve how we can connect with people. We don't change the gospel or water it down, but we have to continue to innovate how/where/when we can witness. My church launched a huge initiative & funding campaign. I live in San Jose, CA so see the urban issues. Talk about sports - we're building a sports complex to host schools, tourney, etc to get more non believers and/or non practicers on campus. Building a coffee house to encourage that group to stick around, building more family/kids bait, etc, etc.

QBCade said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

At this point the question isn't whether a decline is happening, but how fast it's accelerating.

---

And. . . 'how do we react to the change?' I think this is a question that evokes a lot of different responses and even emotions.

---

Agree. As a Christian, I honestly do not know what more can be done. The Gospel has never been more widely spread or known. Nobody can force someone to believe.

I will continue to love, pray, witness, serve, and persevere. I believe God is totally sovereign and can change this at any time. And there is a purpose for it.

There will always be a remnant. I stand on God's promises.

---

Our church (us) has to continue to evolve how we can connect with people. We don't change the gospel or water it down, but we have to continue to innovate how/where/when we can witness. My church launched a huge initiative & funding campaign. I live in San Jose, CA so see the urban issues. Talk about sports - we're building a sports complex to host schools, tourney, etc to get more non believers and/or non practicers on campus. Building a coffee house to encourage that group to stick around, building more family/kids bait, etc, etc.

---

To simplify- find a need in the community that isn't being served; use that as a gateway to witness.

Rocag said:

---

You've not yet demonstrated that a national justice system is dependent on the existence of objective morality. It seems like the only answer you have is that you've defined justice as being dependent on objective morality so if that doesn't exist neither does justice. OK, but I don't accept that definition in the first place.

It does seem like this is all just semantics as referenced in an earlier post.

---

Quote:

---

But let's further separate this idea that law must be based on objective morality. Consider a dictator which hold absolute authority over their country. This dictator decides he doesn't like the color red and anyone caught wearing red will executed. There's lots of reasons to dislike both the law and the system that produces and enforces it, but does that make it any less of a law for the people in that country? Now, can I say that such a law is objectively immoral? Nope. But I'm not really bothered by that fact either. It's not necessary for me to appeal to objective morality to oppose a law I dislike. My reasons will absolutely be subjective but again I don't see that as a problem.

---

I'm combining both of your previous replies.

The problem is you are equating law and morality. I've never argued that and it would be silly to do so.

My premise has always been morality, much like truth, cannot be relative by nature. That's easy to see if you just apply simple logic. If I believe something is morally right and you believe its morally wrong, then who is right if we both get to define it? The answer is neither one of us. Truth is easier to comprehend. How can something be objectively true if we define truth intrinsically? Truth is only true when it is objective and that means it can never defined internally. Morality is no different.

Laws are based on a framework of ethics. The only thing I'm arguing about law is that if its not based on objective morality, then society breaks down because justice is predicated on objectivity. That does not mean laws can be based on subjective morality because that doesn't logically exist. Laws can be based on immorality and thats what we find in tyrannical systems.

Quote:

---

My premise has always been morality, much like truth, cannot be relative by nature. That's easy to see if you just apply simple logic. If I believe something is morally right and you believe its morally wrong, then who is right if we both get to define it? The answer is neither one of us. Truth is easier to comprehend. How can something be objectively true if we define truth intrinsically? Truth is only true when it is objective and that means it can never defined internally. Morality is no different.

---

We're back to you asserting that morality must be objective because you've defined "morality" in such a way that only objective morality counts. I see no reason to do so and you've offered no argument for why it must be that way but instead simply insist it must be. So sure, morality as you define it must either be objective or non-existent. I'd argue your version of morality doesn't exist at all. I certainly don't subscribe to it. When I speak about morality I'm pretty clearly talking about something different than you have in mind.

It reminds me of the concept of sin. Despite the common usage of the word, it actually does have a very specific religious meaning. Sin can't exist independent of god, so therefore if god doesn't exist neither does sin. The actions commonly described as sinful would still exist, of course. But the way they are labeled would be incorrect. Your version of morality seems to be similar.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob_Ag said:

---

I'm not arguing semantics in the slightest, but if you want to, here is a useful definition.

The word just, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

Describe how a society can have justice when morality, or right and wrong, is relative? Describe how its possible to have a rule of law, which is the implementation that allows for civil society, if justice is not based on objective morality?

In your own words, define injustice.

---

I think I want to first distinguish 'ultimate justice from God' from a more accessible legal definition of justice - which is the thing that permits for civil society. Since you've asked about the latter, I'm going to not address ultimate justice from God.

Every society on this planet can be described as a group of people with differing view of morality living with shared common laws which are intended to serve as the objective standard against which legal justice is measured? There is no society that I am aware of that allows for all of its individuals to govern themselves based on their own subjective sense of right and wrong - nor has anyone in this thread suggested that societies ought to be set up that way.

Societies like ours implement rule of law by appealing to the collective views of its citizens to create those laws. 'Legal' justice can be defined as the implementation of said law. Citizens need not appeal to the same source for their objective morality - what is important is that the objectives are generally agreed upon. For example, I think murder is wrong. You think murder is wrong. We both think murder is wrong, even though we appeal to different source to arrive at that conclusion. Our society is built of people who generally consider murder to be wrong and who have reached that conclusion through various paths. There may be some people in society that think murder is okay. You'll never have a society where everyone agrees on everything.


I don't know if I can define injustice without a little bit of context. In a legal context, injustice is a violation of the enacted law. In a more personal context, injustice can be defined as a violation of my personal sense of right and wrong. For example, someone that smokes weed in Texas has violated a law, but has not violated my sense of right and wrong. Enforcing the law and penalizing the person would be legal justice, but that doesn't appeal my personal sense of justice. Living in a society means compromise. Always has and always will.

---

Quote:

---

I want to point out that if you look at different dictionary definitions of 'justice', you will find a whole bunch of different definition variations. The vast majority of definitions of justice appeal to more secular legal definitions and it actually took a few minutes to even find the type of definition you are using.

Objectives need not come from God. We do this ourselves every day in our lives and our jobs. When I go to the store I set objectives based on what I need to buy. And when I work on a project at work, the project has set objectives for what needs to be accomplished. None of these objectives are absolutes or God given.

And is our legal system any different? We create a law saying that murder is illegal and set a penalty for violators. The law is created with an objective in mind and in some cases explicitly stated. Implementation of the law introduces subjectivity because you involve a jury or a judge or some other party that has to read the law, try to understand the objective and then apply the circumstances of the case toward meeting the objective. Nevertheless, laws are established with some 'objective'.

If the definition of justice invokes secular law, then the objective involved is that which is defined by the law and its human creators. If the definition of justice invokes God given objective morality, then there does not exist a legal system that can reflect Celestial, eternal God given judgement and standards.

In other words, the version of justice which requires objective morality is the type of justice that you think God provides. And if the absence of an objective moral standard means that this ultimate, universal, celestial justice is impossible. . . . then its impossible. Who says the world has to be just? It would be nice if it was, but that's not a reason to think it necessary.

---

I'm combining both of your responses.

Let's first remember that when we talk about justice, it has to presume something. Meaning, if I say something is just, it is referring to a thing and we are making a determination about that thing. Empirically in society, justice is a means of recompense for an action or deed. But we first have to decide something about that deed, i.e. whether it was good or bad, right or wrong. So before we go off on the ideas of law or justice, we first have to decide how a society determines what is right and wrong which is what we refer to as ethics. You can't put the cart before the horse.

And yes, the implementation of laws can be subjective like your saying. If someone commits a crime, there can subjective levels of punishment based on a jury or judge. However, justice will always involve whether an action was right or wrong. One person may get life in prison, one may get the death penalty, but both were determined to be breaking a law that is based on moral conduct in society.

Just like you said above, societies do create a rule of law based on a collective view of its citizens (where they got that collective view is the real debate). We all agree that murder is illegal and its illegal because murder is wrong morally.

The only way that can happen is if we have a standard to base that on or otherwise how we can argue against someone that thinks murder is ok? We can't objectively say something is right or wrong if we all get to subjectively determine what is right or wrong.

And that's exactly what we see play out in society. All civil societies generally have a similar set of ethical framework throughout human history.

Morality has to by definition be objective to exist. For something to be objective, it cannot be from within, it has to be external to us. Relative morality doesn't exist.

Could you be conflating humanity's almost infinite ability to rationalize with a lack of "objective moral standards". In other words, such standards may exist yet people invariably find a way to rationalize away their behavior that objectively does violate those standards.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Our laws are subjective as hell even if an objective morality existed (it doesn't).

---

Why do you think that's true?

---

I gave you a simple example. Objectively demonstrate a person is an adult at 18 years old and a child at 17.

---

It is objectively wrong for an adult to have sex with a child. How wrong it is depends on how old the adult is and how old the child is (older adult and younger child makes it more wrong). At what age or development a child becomes an adult differs by society. I've seen anywhere from 12 - 21 or before/after puberty.

Rocag said:

---

Differing by society? That sounds like moral relativism. I was told morality was objective. So what's the one rule on the subject that applies to all people of all societies throughout all of human history?

---

Adults should not have sex with children. How to write that into law requires the lawmaker to draw the line between adult and child. It's not easy.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Differing by society? That sounds like moral relativism. I was told morality was objective. So what's the one rule on the subject that applies to all people of all societies throughout all of human history?

---

Adults should not have sex with children. How to write that into law requires the lawmaker to draw the line between adult and child. It's not easy.

---

Actually it's pretty easy, most societies did that in a few sentences. It just happens to be incredibly subjective. There is no objective definition of "adult"

How old was Mary when married to Joseph and most the other women of the era when first married?

---

I'm not sure. So we agree that adults should not have sex with children across societies and cultures. I'd say that is what "objective" is.

My objective moral standards: bad things are bad and good things are good. I'll not be taking any questions at this time.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Differing by society? That sounds like moral relativism. I was told morality was objective. So what's the one rule on the subject that applies to all people of all societies throughout all of human history?

---

Adults should not have sex with children. How to write that into law requires the lawmaker to draw the line between adult and child. It's not easy.

---

Actually it's pretty easy, most societies did that in a few sentences. It just happens to be incredibly subjective. There is no objective definition of "adult"

How old was Mary when married to Joseph and most the other women of the era when first married?

---

I'm not sure. So we agree that adults should not have sex with children across societies and cultures. I'd say that is what "objective" is.

---

That's not what objective means that all. We could both agree that pepperoni pizza is superior to ham and pineapple does that make it objective? Of course not. Go through and answer my previous questions and you will see the problems.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Differing by society? That sounds like moral relativism. I was told morality was objective. So what's the one rule on the subject that applies to all people of all societies throughout all of human history?

---

Adults should not have sex with children. How to write that into law requires the lawmaker to draw the line between adult and child. It's not easy.

---

Actually it's pretty easy, most societies did that in a few sentences. It just happens to be incredibly subjective. There is no objective definition of "adult"

How old was Mary when married to Joseph and most the other women of the era when first married?

---

I'm not sure. So we agree that adults should not have sex with children across societies and cultures. I'd say that is what "objective" is.

---

That's not what objective means that all.

---

yah, I'm pretty sure that's what the problem here is. What is the difference between subjective and objective morality? I asked on page 3 and nobody addressed it.

To say something is subjective is to say it's dependent on a mind, so it's dependent on individual feelings, emotions, perceptions, experiences, imagination ect.

So for instance taste in music or art. The root of subjective is subject-it depends on the subject. Even if two or more subjects agree, it won't change something from subjective to objective.

To say something is objective is to say the opposite, it doesn't rely on a mind, on preferences, it cannot be said to vary between individuals, or if it does we can demonstrate rationally that one of those individuals is wrong relying only on the rules of logic and basic presuppositions about the universe.

For instance if two rocks fall down a hill followed by three more you objectively have 5 rocks that fell. This is true regardless of your opinion, emotions, preferences ect.

To say a moral claim is objective or subjective is to see which category it falls in. There is a strong emotional preference some have for asserting a moral claim is objective. But actually demonstrating this is incredibly difficult at best (I would argue it's actually impossible).

So when we ask, objectively when is someone an adult, you see the issue. How we define "adult" is nebulous, varies wildly by individual perceptions and cultural norms and expectations. There is no rule or criteria we can assert that demonstrates this is an adult the same way we can scientifically or objectively state this person is female, this person has blue eyes, this person was born 19 years ago ect.

A 30 year old having sex with a 6 year old is wrong regardless of your opinion, emotions, preferences. I know this as much a 2 + 3 = 5. Maybe you don't in which it proves this increase in religious 'nones' will lead to the moral degradation of society.

That still doesn't define what it means to be an adult and what it mean to be a child. If the standard is objective and clear then there must be a line defining what is acceptable and what is not. I just want to know where the objective standard says the line is. If Christianity can't define the moral boundaries between right and wrong, what use is its so called objective morality?

For the record, I don't believe there's an objective standard here that could be applied to all people of all cultures across all of human history. But I don't have a problem with morality being subjective either.

Aggrad08 said:

---

To say something is subjective is to say it's dependent on a mind, so it's dependent on individual feelings, emotions, perceptions, experiences, imagination ect.

So for instance taste in music or art. The root of subjective is subject-it depends on the subject. Even if two or more subjects agree, it won't change something from subjective to objective.

To say something is objective is to say the opposite, it doesn't rely on a mind, on preferences, it cannot be said to vary between individuals, or if it does we can demonstrate rationally that one of those individuals is wrong relying only on the rules of logic and basic presuppositions about the universe.

For instance if two rocks fall down a hill followed by three more you objectively have 5 rocks that fell. This is true regardless of your opinion, emotions, preferences ect.

To say a moral claim is objective or subjective is to see which category it falls in. There is a strong emotional preference some have for asserting a moral claim is objective. But actually demonstrating this is incredibly difficult at best (I would argue it's actually impossible).

So when we ask, objectively when is someone an adult, you see the issue. How we define "adult" is nebulous, varies wildly by individual perceptions and cultural norms and expectations. There is no rule or criteria we can assert that demonstrates this is an adult the same way we can scientifically or objectively state this person is female, this person has blue eyes, this person was born 19 years ago ect.

---

But you can't empirically prove your sense perception is reliable, so you can't know that 5 rocks fell. The foundation of the physical sciences can't be proved scientifically. We have to grant certain principles in order to "do science". Using your definition, nothing is objective.

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

To say something is subjective is to say it's dependent on a mind, so it's dependent on individual feelings, emotions, perceptions, experiences, imagination ect.

So for instance taste in music or art. The root of subjective is subject-it depends on the subject. Even if two or more subjects agree, it won't change something from subjective to objective.

To say something is objective is to say the opposite, it doesn't rely on a mind, on preferences, it cannot be said to vary between individuals, or if it does we can demonstrate rationally that one of those individuals is wrong relying only on the rules of logic and basic presuppositions about the universe.

For instance if two rocks fall down a hill followed by three more you objectively have 5 rocks that fell. This is true regardless of your opinion, emotions, preferences ect.

To say a moral claim is objective or subjective is to see which category it falls in. There is a strong emotional preference some have for asserting a moral claim is objective. But actually demonstrating this is incredibly difficult at best (I would argue it's actually impossible).

So when we ask, objectively when is someone an adult, you see the issue. How we define "adult" is nebulous, varies wildly by individual perceptions and cultural norms and expectations. There is no rule or criteria we can assert that demonstrates this is an adult the same way we can scientifically or objectively state this person is female, this person has blue eyes, this person was born 19 years ago ect.

---

But you can't empirically prove your sense perception is reliable, so you can't know that 5 rocks fell. The foundation of the physical sciences can't be proved scientifically. We have to grant certain principles in order to "do science". Using your definition, nothing is objective.

---

No read again I included basic presuppositions about the universe and the rules of logic. A basic reliability of the senses would be included in those presuppositions

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

To say something is subjective is to say it's dependent on a mind, so it's dependent on individual feelings, emotions, perceptions, experiences, imagination ect.

So for instance taste in music or art. The root of subjective is subject-it depends on the subject. Even if two or more subjects agree, it won't change something from subjective to objective.

To say something is objective is to say the opposite, it doesn't rely on a mind, on preferences, it cannot be said to vary between individuals, or if it does we can demonstrate rationally that one of those individuals is wrong relying only on the rules of logic and basic presuppositions about the universe.

For instance if two rocks fall down a hill followed by three more you objectively have 5 rocks that fell. This is true regardless of your opinion, emotions, preferences ect.

To say a moral claim is objective or subjective is to see which category it falls in. There is a strong emotional preference some have for asserting a moral claim is objective. But actually demonstrating this is incredibly difficult at best (I would argue it's actually impossible).

So when we ask, objectively when is someone an adult, you see the issue. How we define "adult" is nebulous, varies wildly by individual perceptions and cultural norms and expectations. There is no rule or criteria we can assert that demonstrates this is an adult the same way we can scientifically or objectively state this person is female, this person has blue eyes, this person was born 19 years ago ect.

---

But you can't empirically prove your sense perception is reliable, so you can't know that 5 rocks fell. The foundation of the physical sciences can't be proved scientifically. We have to grant certain principles in order to "do science". Using your definition, nothing is objective.

---

No read again I included basic presuppositions about the universe and the rules of logic. A basic reliability of the senses would be included in those presuppositions

---

So you get to grant yourself an entire epistemological framework to get around the fact that you can't empirically prove scientific truths. But you reject metaphysical truths because they can't be proved empirically?

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

To say something is subjective is to say it's dependent on a mind, so it's dependent on individual feelings, emotions, perceptions, experiences, imagination ect.

So for instance taste in music or art. The root of subjective is subject-it depends on the subject. Even if two or more subjects agree, it won't change something from subjective to objective.

To say something is objective is to say the opposite, it doesn't rely on a mind, on preferences, it cannot be said to vary between individuals, or if it does we can demonstrate rationally that one of those individuals is wrong relying only on the rules of logic and basic presuppositions about the universe.

For instance if two rocks fall down a hill followed by three more you objectively have 5 rocks that fell. This is true regardless of your opinion, emotions, preferences ect.

To say a moral claim is objective or subjective is to see which category it falls in. There is a strong emotional preference some have for asserting a moral claim is objective. But actually demonstrating this is incredibly difficult at best (I would argue it's actually impossible).

So when we ask, objectively when is someone an adult, you see the issue. How we define "adult" is nebulous, varies wildly by individual perceptions and cultural norms and expectations. There is no rule or criteria we can assert that demonstrates this is an adult the same way we can scientifically or objectively state this person is female, this person has blue eyes, this person was born 19 years ago ect.

---

But you can't empirically prove your sense perception is reliable, so you can't know that 5 rocks fell. The foundation of the physical sciences can't be proved scientifically. We have to grant certain principles in order to "do science". Using your definition, nothing is objective.

---

No read again I included basic presuppositions about the universe and the rules of logic. A basic reliability of the senses would be included in those presuppositions

---

So you get to grant yourself an entire epistemological framework to get around the fact that you can't empirically prove scientific truths. But you reject metaphysical truths because they can't be proved empirically?

---

I grant the bare minimum to get past solipsism or mind in a vat problems. That scientific truths can operate objectively on this bare minimum is simply a side effect.

And note that the bare minimum presuppositions I'm speaking of are virtually completely universal and utterly uncontroversial. You'd have no way of managing the same for some unnecessary metaphysical presuppositions, let alone the incredible list of them you'd need for objective morality.

Rocag said:

---

That still doesn't define what it means to be an adult and what it mean to be a child. If the standard is objective and clear then there must be a line defining what is acceptable and what is not. I just want to know where the objective standard says the line is. If Christianity can't define the moral boundaries between right and wrong, what use is its so called objective morality?

For the record, I don't believe there's an objective standard here that could be applied to all people of all cultures across all of human history. But I don't have a problem with morality being subjective either.

---

Scientifically speaking, an adult is one who has passed through puberty.

Theologically, it's 12 years old, or however the local society views it (ours around 17, 18 or 21 years old).

But that's not my point, I thought we could all agree that an adult should not have sex with a child. You are hung up on age. Fine, so I change it to a 30 year old should not have sex with a 6 year old. Now I'm being charged with some random logical fallacies as if I'm trying to make some formal argument here.

Is it true, that beyond opinion, emotions, preferences, etc. that a 30 year old should not have sex with a 6 year old? That despite the century, country, society, or culture, it is wrong for this to occur? I suspect you'll have a hard time saying yes, and instead focus on the first two sentences in this post, because you'd have to admit that this moral statement is objective according to Aggrad08's definitions of subjective/objective.

Quote:

---

Rules of logic can be (and were) derived from observation about our universe and you cannot demonstrate that a god is required for such things to exist.

---

Rules of logic are entirely conceptual. You can't observe them anywhere. They only exist in your mind. Something outside of your mind will have to have created them for you to say otherwise.

Rocag said:

---

No one is saying that they believe it is morally acceptable for a 30 year old to have sex with a 6 year old. Not a single person in this thread. Since morality is subjective, I can really only speak for myself. Could some other culture decide this is morally acceptable? Possibly. Would that change my moral beliefs? Nope.

---

Is it wrong for that culture to practice it? Considering you can only speak for yourself.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Rules of logic can be (and were) derived from observation about our universe and you cannot demonstrate that a god is required for such things to exist.

---

Rules of logic are entirely conceptual. You can't observe them anywhere. They only exist in your mind. Something outside of your mind will have to have created them for you to say otherwise.

---

That's like saying you can't observe gravity. Or you cant observe magnetism. You can through observation arrive at the law of non contradiction. Or law of identity. In fact we see some issues with our logical rules when it comes to the quantum level. If macro objects behaved similarly to how we model quantum objects we'd have probably not arrived at the law of the excluded middle.

The laws require a mind. Just like our thoughts do, but there is nothing that demands a mind outside our own.

According to my subjective moral beliefs? Yes.

Didn't we already talk about how subjective agreement doesn't infer objectivity? Why are we going in circles. You need an objective standard, something by which you can demonstrate logically that your moral rule is true for all peoples at all times.

It doesn't matter if every person on the planet says it's moral to kill a cow for meat, it's still a subjective belief. Its foundation always relies on the subject.