One of the arguments for the existence of God is that there needs to be a measurement for moral law. A moral law requires a moral law-giver. This requires that morality is objective and not just subjective.
But are there really moral absolutes?
It has been observed that while there are great areas of overlap across cultures and generations, there are differences in what is considered moral. There has been a tremendous amount of change in sexual morality over the last five decades.
While there was a time when even respectable church people participated in and condoned slavery, we would acknowledge today that slavery is wrong.
Sometimes there are differences within the same generation but from culture to culture, between different countries and sometimes even within the same nation.
Does that contradict the idea of moral absolutes?
Not at all. The moral argument does not require current agreement on what that moral law looks like, only that such a law exists.
Think of it in terms of science. There has been tremendous amount of change in the last hundred years within physics, chemistry and biology. Even today, academic journals are filled with debates about how to interpret the scientific evidence for any particular theory.
We would not suggest that the physical laws on which science is based on do not exist because scientists disagree on how to interpret the data. We would just say that the physical laws exist and hopefully our understanding will grow each year.
It is the same when it comes to the moral law. An absolute moral law can exist without our having to agree on every detail of what it looks like. Don’t be so quick to throw out moral absolutes.