secularmerlin

free will is necessary

The first child eats both pieces of candy.

The stealing his siblings candy was an evil necessary to satisfy his sweet tooth and greed.

Or let's say there's a child at their blind parents death bed, and the parent asks if their other child who happens to be mute is there as well.

The child who is there 'lies and says yes they are.

Parent dies happy.

The lie was an evil necessary to satisfy the childs desire to make his parent's death happier by thinking their other mute child was there as well.

Nonetheless...In either respect, morality is always internally processed data, rather than a universal constant.

There’s already a word that describes that, it’s called self refuting.

Irrespective of what a dictionary might say, we nonetheless run all data through our processing units before we issue a response.

All data output therefore  has a level of subjectivity to it.

Under your view one system that embraces love and another that embraces hate

one you look up definitions in the dictionary it’s for clarity not confusion.

No I’m saying that labeling those systems the same thing even if they’re polar opposites is confusing and one you look up definitions in the dictionary it’s for clarity not confusion.

war is a necessary evil.

it's bloody, destroys  infrastructure, and costs people limbs and livelihoods. But sometimes it is necessary for freedom.

Same argument applies to subjective morality.

It isn't comprehensible. It is definitionally impossible. 

How so?

In this case objective morality being comprehensible is useful because that’s where the goal of being objective moral starts.

Unless we as humans have some way of distinguishing between the two this is not actually helpful to us

Aren’t you the same guy that said

Well the world is a confusing and contradictory place and under no obligation to make sense to us.

Here’s an idea, or maybe it’s because some are objectively right and others are objectively wrong.

Speak for yourself, I see subjective morality as self refuting considering the many different diametrically opposed faces it has.

There you go being dramatic and flying over the handle, nobody said anything about “the world” but the meaning of morality is plain old semantics and at the very least should make sense to everyone.

Here’s an idea, or maybe it’s because some are objectively right and others are objectively wrong.

Food is a currency of sorts. People use it against others. 

So then why doesn't he offer a non-magical solution to end, say, hunger? The only answer would appear to be "He doesn't want to," which then leads to one of two possible conclusions. Either he intends for people to starve to death, or he cannot actually offer these solutions. 

I'm not refering to "magic", which is just human trickery, but God can offer effective, permanent solutions to any problem He so chooses.

In order to have those you have to prove subjective morality exists which you can’t.

personal moral intuition

There’s no such thing.

A wish may be subjective, but a true goal, one that is going to be accomplished by the will and the means of the individual making it becomes very objective.