[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I right to assume that moral/natural law necessitates a divine presense?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

An objective morality cannot come from any kind of god.

Morality is objective if a given moral claim is true or false without regard to whether anybody agrees with it. Morality is subjective if it's a matter of mere personal preference.

Math, for example, is objective because "2 + 2 = 4" is true whether or not you agree. But taste is subjective because "tomatoes are yummier than carrots" is merely a statement of preference.

If we say that morality is whatever God wants it to be, that's every bit as subjective as if we say that morality is whatever you want, or whatever Comrade Stalin wants, or whatever the majority wants -- subjective because, in that case, morality is merely a matter of God's personal preference.

Is there any objective reason why God's preference should matter more than mine? If we say that God's preference matters more than mine because of X, well, that means that moral claims are ultimately determined by X rather than by by God's whim.

(And note that X must be independent of God. If X is simply "because God wants it that way," then we're left with the claim that God's preferences matter most because that's what God prefers. Not only is that circular, but it doesn't uniquely apply to God. Stalin would prefer his preferences to matter most as well.)

So whatever the independent justification is for saying that God's preferences matter more than mine do, it's that justifying principle -- not God's whim -- that ultmately determines the truth or falsity of moral claims. In an objective moral theory, a moral dictator is at best a middleman and at worst a fraud.

The overall conclusion is that objective moral theory is equally reasonable for theists and atheists.