<<And, I might add, the burden of proof rests on those who are trying to
prove that such a standard exists.>>
Jim: Why? Because you obviously can't meet your own burden, viz., to prove
that God and objective morality do not exist?
Wait a minute. The burden of proof falls on those claiming that god
exists. Even assuming that god exists, how do we know what his ideas on
morality are, how do we know that these ideas are objective, universal and
eternal ?
Jim: Where does it say Russell Stewart gets to decide who has what burden
of proof? You can try (so far without success) to attack one side; but
sooner or later you're going to have to mount your own case.
One can perfectly well attack one side, and I believe Russell is doing a
fine job here, without mounting one's own case. Showing that there is no
proof of the existance of a god or an objective morality standard does not
require one to 'mount one's own case'.