I'm sure you have some sort of interesting take on this. One of my most central philosophical frameworks is on the inherent subjectivity of morality --- morality being a human-constructed concept, is not real to in the physical world, in that there is no such thing as platonic essence of morality. it only exists as a constructed system in the context of human psychology and society. Where do you stand on this question? Are you a relativist or an essentialist
The following is just sketching.
A definitive proof of the existence of an objective, external morality is not exactly the same thing as a proof of the existence of God, but it's very close.
That anything exists at all is still, in a sense, somewhat strange. An intuition I get is, "what would a mathematical construct feel like from the inside?" That is, everything which is logically possible exists. I'm not sure that this is true, because we cannot observe it.
However, this would imply two things. First, if the objective morality is bound to a specific universe, then its presence may not imply the existence of a creator. Second, if every universe exists, then wouldn't at least some universes behave as if a creator exists?
The existence of a creator also would not necessarily imply a flat, uniform morality. Humans being fundamentally finite and incomplete beings, the morality for each one might be different. That might seem strange, but the process of opposition can generate gains (see human dimensionality as an example). The different position between each human in the world means a different relation between each human and the world, so if the nature of good is not sufficiently reducible, then it may be unique per person in practice.
Likewise, if choice is necessary (and we still don't really understand consciousness) from the creator's perspective, then it would make sense if the world is constructed such that it's either possible to be a believer, or possible to be an atheist, without going mad. Uniformly transmitting knowledge about the creator's existence would also be impossible; the receiver would have to have already made the choice to be a believer, or it wouldn't be a choice anymore.
We already effectively have to act on faith that the world outside us exists and that our senses and thoughts aren't being tampered with. Acting on faith that morality itself exists doesn't seem to be that much more of a leap, and generally, if people choose it, then the world will be better to live in, and if they don't, then it will be worse.
Without desires, a being will be inert, and will likely perish. As mentioned in the Gelada post, just blindly following desires is likely to lead to a reduction in agent complexity. It is only through following some principle or standard that desire can flow back into capability. "If you're a human being, you've got to play for the love of the game."
That you've got to hold on to some principle, but that it isn't any one specific principle, exactly...
That sounds like a little cosmic joke, does it not?
