Because you "know we are created by God" you cannot see my point of discussion. What if there is no God? What if you are wrong? What if the Hindus are right? What if the atheists are right? What then?
To me, "what then" includes an as yet unaccounted for source for moral principles, namely the that which is neither God nor man and, absent God, is the source of us. You do not acknowledge that possibility, but it is logically there.
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.
Actually it is not incoherent, but it does depend on an ability to consider our existence in the absence of the existence of God. With or without God, we are here. The fact that we are here implies we have a source. The source is either God or something else. It is possible that that something else is the source of moral absolutes just, in your belief God is.
Beyond that, I'm saying that if our source is something else than God, and absolutes are associated with that something else, you may then conclude they are not moral at all, that they are more akin to saying it is an absolute that newborns are dependent on responsible adults for their survival. That dependence while absolute is neither moral nor immoral.
My argument here can be summarized as follows:
1. Mankind has a source.
2. That source can be either God or something else.
3. If the source is not God, it is something else.
4. If the source is something else, it may include absolutes just as the God source includes absolutes.
5. The absolutes possible if the source is other than God, may be of a type that include individual choice, and the individual choices may be "good" or "bad". That is, in today's context we'd think of it as a moral absolute.
That's the whole point. If there is no god, there are no moral abosolutes. If there is no god, all humans acts become neutral. If there is no god, it is as Marquis de Sade claimed, "what is, is right". Atheists must be moral relativists if there is no god because the only remaining source for morals is "man" - each man plays God for himself or tries to play God for other people. Atheists like AR are all moral relativists BECAUSE they don't believe in God.
As for other religions, again, just apply the law of contradiction. Each version of God contradicts the other and all cannot be right. One can be right, or all can be wrong, but all cannot be right. Therefore, one must look at the only one that covers all the bases of reality - Christianity.
Beyond that, I'm saying that if our source is something else than God, and absolutes are associated with that something else, you may then conclude they are not moral at all, that they are more akin to saying it is an absolute that newborns are dependent on responsible adults for their survival. That dependence while absolute is neither moral nor immoral.
Let's just stick to reality shall we? If you think morals can come from something else, then name it. From what specifically? If you can't name it, it doesn't exist.
My argument here can be summarized as follows: 1. Mankind has a source.
Only possible sources are God or the primordial ooze - take your pick.