The nature of our existence.
We are here, therefore we had a source. One offered source of our existence is God. It is either true or false that God is the source of our existence.
If there is no God, then there is another source of our existence. That other source may also have absolutes, things that are the source of man, and which man may not be able to change. That is, they may not be "relative".
The absolutes possible due to the source of man's existence may be of the sort that we have come to know as "moral" things. According to our understanding of things, they would be "moral absolutes".
In fact, I contend liberty is just such an absolute. That it is a condition of our existence, it is moral, i.e., good, and it is absolute. You may disagree, but I doubt you'll get very far in making a case for the absence of liberty. I'd be very interested in hearing such a case, though.
What is that? Do all people have the same nature of existence? Can't be...because different people have different morals. Which person's morals correctly conform to this "nature of existence"? Ayn Rand maybe? How do you show which person's idea of morals is correct? Please tell me, where can I find this "nature of existence" so that I can find out how I should behave morally? Obviously, this is not the answer - this is just a nebulous catch-all phrase that really has no substance and cannot even be defined with any certainty.
We are here, therefore we had a source. One offered source of our existence is God. It is either true or false that God is the source of our existence.
You are confusing being (existence) with morals. I know we exist and I know we are created by God, but morals has to do with right and wrong, not being. so, I ask you again, Where do moral principles come from? Man or God?
The absolutes possible due to the source of man's existence may be of the sort that we have come to know as "moral" things. According to our understanding of things, they would be "moral absolutes".
This is incoherent - you are mixing categories - ontological and moral. This statement you made makes no sense.
In fact, I contend liberty is just such an absolute. That it is a condition of our existence, it is moral, i.e., good, and it is absolute. You may disagree, but I doubt you'll get very far in making a case for the absence of liberty. I'd be very interested in hearing such a case, though. Why would I disagree with liberty? Liberty is an unalienable right (see Decl. of Independence) that comes from God, but it is not a condition of our existence - many do not have liberty. Whether or not someone has liberty depends upon whether or not their ruling authority is a God-fearing man. Not one single marxist country has any liberty becuase they do not believe liberty is God-given, they believe it is man-given. Liberty exists where men follow the moral principles from God.