Perhaps you forgot about the view of God that holds his views subject to the nature of the universe.

Then by definition, that is not God.

God: 1. capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality

He is defines reality, so how can he be subject to it?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

Your idea of a supreme being is western-centric. Your opinion of God is based on an opinion of a definition of God.

But obviously, this is the God being talked about. If you are attempting to define God as otherwise that is an equivoque and you are only attacking a straw man argument.

All of which is experienced as morality and was required for survival, which is the standard. A standard is all that is required for objectivity.

An objective standard is required for objectivity. Firstly, evolution is not a moral standard, because morality is not an inherent inference of evolution. Also, how is objective if it has to gradually develop? And not only does it need to develop, but its development is subjective to those who experience it? That in itself goes against the definition of objective morality.

This is actually the common theory today.

"Theory", yet you state it as fact? And if you are trying to imply its accuracy by stating how common it is, that's just the fallacy ad populum.

This brought the development of the frontal lobe which aloud symbolic reasoning and thus social cohesion. Symbolic reasoning allows us to thing conceptually and replace instinct driven action with concept driven principles or "codes" of conduct. The internalization of these codes are necessary for them to be applied consistently. This internalization is when a code becomes a moral.

And this, in itself, goes against the very nature and definition of objective morality.

Objective: existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

According to you, not only does morality exist only in the mind, it is created by it. Your "morality" exists first in the mind, and is then applied to reality. The point of objectivity is that it must exist in the reality first, and then it is (or can be) perceived by the mind, because if its primary existence lies in the mind it is subjective to opinion or feelings. Your definition doesn't necessarily have morality subjective to each individual. With your definition, morality is subjective humans (or any other rational creature) when influenced by nature and society, but it is nonetheless subjective.

The standard of survival determines the objectivity of morality. Surviving "better" means increasing quality of life. The objective morality is that which best serves the standard of survival, which is the function of its evolutionary basis. This does not require God.

And again, this goes against the definition of objectivity.

Objective : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

Because we want to "survive better" and "increase our quality of life" morals developed in the mind as we evolved? Yes, your morality does not require God, but that is not true objective morality.

Regardless of all of this, it is still a false dichotomy to claim that; either God exists, or murder is not wrong.

You may want to reconsider your wording choice there. I don't know about "regardless of all of this", considering it is only a false dichotomy if your arguments are actually true.

Why would someone downvote this? Especially without actually explaining why. That's stupid.

Naruto. It is a very interesting storyline and pretty fun to watch. And the whole idea of tailed beasts, jinchuriki, jutsus and dojutsus are super cool. As for protagonists and antagonists they do a really good job of showing Naruto progress and mature throughout the show and help you really get to know his character. I didn't like him at first cuz he was pretty annoying but then you begin to understand him as the show progresses and I began to appreciate him. The antagonist part is really cool cuz there are so many sub-antagonists that have really a really major part in the show and you can really get to know them as well (Pain is my favorite). The major antagonist you never really know, even if you think you do, giving the show some interesting plot twists.

That is an opinion about a supreme being

No, it is the definition of God itself, not my opinion. It's an inherent trait. With the existence of God, it is a direct inference that his "opinion" is the only objective thing in reality, because his "opinion" is what defines reality itself.

On evolution and morality; there is plenty of research to support my position that morality has a neurological basis that evolved over time.

If it evolved over time then there is nothing objective about it. There is no ultimate standard for morality. Evolution wouldn't not the standard, just the process by which we come to it (which we couldn't because there would be none). And just the fact that it would take a process in and of itself shows that it isn't objective morality. While "morals" may exist without a God, they certainly are not objective.

Your unsupported statements lacked even a reason for you giving them. Your statements are far from self-evident.

As did yours. I know you said that objective morality can exist without God, because this metaphysical phenomenon can somehow be explained through evolution, but you never actually said how. Maybe you could explain further?

True, but I never heard of Galactus being the embodiment of fear. But then again, comic writers do tend to add random traits to characters sometimes.

You seem to be confusing some characteristics of Galactus with those of Parallax.

Thanos. Wielder of the infinity gauntlet, destroyer of the universe, and even had a thing with Death herself. Enough said.

Followed by

But if, according to you, "there is no knowledge of one", what is there to follow by?

As if you have some kind of understanding of the one that exists.

That is my exact point. It doesn't matter what my or anyones understanding of the one that exists is. Regardless of what I understand or believe, on the premise that there is a supreme being, he and only he would be the standard for objectivity.

Anyway, you clearly out-reasoned me at every point as anyone reading will be able to see without question. Good win

Clearly, seeing as your only rebuttal is poorly used sarcasm.

Morality has to do with evolution.

No it doesn't.

There are countless opinions on the nature of a hypothetical supreme being. Since there is no knowledge of one, and we can make up what we want, then there is no way to have a legitimate debate along these lines.

Our opinions of God do not define him. However many different opinions of God there are, the one that exists would be the the only constant, and therefore the only standard of objectivity. Our lack of knowledge on something doesn't define what it is. You are basing your argument upon humans subjective idea of God, not his actuality. If we do not know his actuality, we cant make up whatever we want (well we could but it wouldn't be true), we simply cannot know it.

The point of the debate is a false dichotomy.

The point of the debate is a true hypothetical.

The standard for evolution is survival. This isn't a subjective standard, it's emergent.

But evolution has nothing to do with morality. There is no objective standard set by it, so there is no objective morality aside from the existence of God.

To argue about this we would have to claim knowledge of a supreme being. You'll get no rebuttal from me.

No, it's a hypothetical. If there is a God, opinion would be inapplicable to him. "If there is a God, then there is no objective morality" is the original point in question, I think you are missing the point of the debate.