Is morality objective or just opinion?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is morality objective or just opinion?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

Morality is objective, I'm a theist, under the theistic paradigm God is identical to goodness, yet he is personal because the persons of God subsist in the nature of God, while the nature is the necessary aspect of reality

You've just smuggled in the problem you're trying to solve. If God *is* goodness by identity, then you're not grounding morality in something external—you're defining it circularly. Why should we accept that God's nature equals objective moral truth rather than God simply *having* subjective preferences? That conflates power with objectivity.

The grounding is the necessary existence, what are you not understanding?

Necessity doesn't create objectivity. Math is necessary but abstract. You've just renamed subjectivity "necessary existence" and called it a rebuttal. Why does God's necessity make His preferences binding on us rather than arbitrary divine will?

math is rational, logical, which is another necessary aspect of reality, as a theist that is God's nature too, but ethics which is distinct from logic and rationality is necessary is also a necessary aspect of reality we call God's nature, if God exist in all possible worlds, existence is objective, thus the virtues being grounded is objective, God can't change his nature, because it's necessary, his person subsist in the nature, you have a poor understanding of metaphysics

You're equivocating. Math is necessary because it's *logical consistency*, not because it exists in possible worlds. But ethics isn't a tautology like 2+2=4—it requires *interpretation*. You've asserted God's nature is necessary without proving it, then claimed ethics flows from it. Even if God exists necessarily, that doesn't mean His virtues do. Why can't a necessary being have contingent moral preferences? You've restated your position, not defended it.

Because the argument then becomes to prove God exist, unless you want to do internal critique or euthyphro dilemma where God is seperate from these necessary aspects of reality like rationality, logic, virtue, ethics, morality, under the theistic paradigm, these necessary aspect is what God is by essence and existence, I'm not talking about interpretation epistemically you're confusing epistemology and ontology, I'm talking about the ontological status of morality, and you seem to not be understanding that metaphysical aspect

You're hiding behind metaphysics to avoid the actual problem. Even granting God's necessary existence and that virtue is His essence—so what? You still haven't explained *why* His nature binds us morally. A necessary being with necessary properties doesn't automatically create moral obligation. Zeus existed necessarily in Greek metaphysics too. Necessity proves nothing about normativity. Why should I care about God's essential nature unless you show the bridge from *is* to *ought*? That's not epistemology, that's the actual gap you're dodging.

Because existence is metaphysical and metaphysical is directly linked to our metaethics of nature, and that metaethical system is where our normative flows from

That's circular reasoning dressed in jargon. You're asserting metaethics flows from metaphysics without proving the link. Why does what *is* necessary dictate what *ought* to be? Show the actual mechanism, not just rename the problem.

because "ought" is from an authority that is personal that's why us theist reject platonism of necessary objects of forms, but we have a God who is personal and have the ability to judge because his persons subsist in the nature that is necessary therefore can also make judgement and can have "ought" based on the nature with the person subsisting in it, and you have yet to clarify if you're doing an internal or external critique

Internal critique then: you're claiming the person can judge based on necessary nature, but persons make *choices*. If God's judgments flow necessarily from His nature, they're not really judgments at all—they're just logical entailments. You've collapsed personhood into impersonal necessity. Either God freely chooses morality (making it arbitrary) or He can't choose (making Him not personal). You can't have both.