Anyway, I'm talking about objective morality.
There is no such thing as objective morals, only our ability to objectively decide if actions are moral once we have decided what our values are. Remember morality is the framework in which we judge actions to be good and bad, it is not good and bad in itself. To analogize for you. The word
measurement is not a measurement, it is a word that describes how we quantify distance. We subjectively decide what a particular distance is and from there we can say that something is objectively that distance. Morality is not what
is moral, it is a system for determining what is and is not moral. Once we, or god,
subjectively decide what is moral based on what we claim to value, we can say objectively what is and is not moral.
The flaw in the concept of objective morality is totally incoherent. All of morality is applied to subjects, what does it mean to have a moral independent of subjects? It's like trying to claim that a foot is an objective measurement.
Is killing babies is wrong in a universe without babies? Stop and think, does that even make any sense? You can claim that god proclaims morality to be objective, but god is a
subject and therefore morals are subjective to the subject, which in this case you claim is god. If you believe in god, then by definition, morals are
subject to the wishes of your god. God, with all of the powers you give him, can't change the definition of subjective any more than he can make a squared circle. Unless you believe that morals exist without god and he is simple the messenger, but that would create a whole new set of problems for your belief in god.