Underlying Philosophy

Kinda anti-climatic. But I think the origins of logic are based in trial and error.People have sought answers in many ways:
-relying on authority
-relying on majority
-relying on personal gut feeling
-relying on logic alone
-relying on logic based on objective evidence found in realityEach has varying levels of difficulty to grasp and use and varying success.
I don't think logic was "discovered" as it was more "stumbled upon" as people realized what didn't work...Still doesn't really answer the question very well, but I felt like rambling.

What you are talking about is not an acceptable explanation, it's just a story.An acceptable explanation would involve:
-a foundation of objective and verifiable observations of reality
-logical reasoning of various forms derived from those observations and showing how the conclusions were reached
-a description of the limitations of the explanation and conclusionsI think you have provided the middle portion. But without basing it on a solid foundation, you cannot be sure you're not making mistakes or possibly even just creating imaginary ideas. Withing describing the limitations, you're scope is so incredibly massive that it's... unprofessional... to let others simply "guess" at where you expect the information to start and stop making sense.

Why do you require a "true, lasting reward" for anything you do? Who is a better person? Someone who does something nice in order to receive a "true, lasting reward" (or any kind of reward), or someone who does something nice, just to be nice?You are not making your view of the universe seem very attractive. Why would anyone want to live like you, if this is how you perceive things?

Agreed. Yes, agreed again. Perfectly justified. No, I do not. My reason for being nice, is "just to be nice". I agree one would be justified. In exactly the same way I am justified in doing nice things "just to be nice".So, if you can do nice things "just to be nice". And I can do nice things "just to be nice"... why do we require your God again?

Of course not. How can anyone possibly be justified in committing a crime? Laws are a set of regulations/rules placed upon a populace that the populace agrees to by living in that area (assuming a democratic region like the ones you and I likley live within). Therefore, it is impossible to ever "be justified" in committing a crime. No, it would not be. But, since this never happens... there's nothing to worry about. Again, they seem to be very similar to the reasons I am "nice" and how I judge those who do wrong. So, again, I ask... what is the point of bringing up your God?If I'm atheist and you believe in God. And we both are nice "just to be nice" and we both judge others who do wrong because they are not being nice... then what's the point of adding God into it at all?

I don't think such a thing is possible. God may be able to establish an objective truth in the form of a rock or a tree. But establishing an objective idea? That's just an immature, uneducated, blatant contradiction. Like making a "square circle". It's not impossible because it takes an unimaginable amount of power... it's impossible because it's logically (and laughably) contradictory.Even if this truth-idea is created "outside of this physical world", it's still an idea. It's still God's idea. And therefore it's still God's subjective idea.Unless you're saying God was unable to choose a different moral absolute? The idea isn't from God's wisdom at all? In which case... God himself would be limited by these objective morals as well. In which case... God is not required to identify these beyond-God morals.

A very good point.Even if we turn the "amoral dictator" into a benficially-motivated guide there are still grave issues.
The ones accepting the Divine Command Theory do not necessarily understand why stealing (or anything else) is actually wrong. Which is the entire foundation behind moral decision making. They simply take it for granted.
It is akin to the relationship between a programmer and a robot. What will the robot do when it encounters a situation the programmer did not explicitly define?It is an incredibly naive method for attempting to pass moral standards from one being (or even "plane of existance") to another. (Which is why humans only do this while their children remain unquestioning, undeveloped sponges).We can even give the benefit of the doubt to some sort of "God" being.
Let's say that God, in his infinite power and wisdom, does possess the knowledge of "the best" moral system possible.
God A: "Mortals, here are my explicit commandments, follow them because I know what's best."
God B: "Mortals, here is the reasoning behind my commandments, if you can identify any flaws or any improvements come and we will discuss any and all possible errors."The commandments are the same and will always remain the same. The possible errors isn't for God B's improvement... such is impossible, it is part of our learning of moral lessons. Part of the ongoing struggle to constantly pursue more-moral and better-good outcomes. God may have infinite power and wisdom, but we certainly do not.