A perfect god can not exist?

Agreed, and the fact remains that the a world governed by relativism would necessarily have to be one of either all out anarchy or might makes right. Since the world is not run by all out anarchy it only leaves might makes right....but might makes right would then become a universe moral truth thereby refuting relativism in the first place. Therefore relativism must be false.

But I don't agree with it. There is no argument supporting the thesis to begin with.

Even though Cultural Relativism is true.
Cultural Moral Relativism is false.

The latter does not follow from the first, so the argument is invalid. So there is no good argument for Cultural Moral Relativism

But you seem to just miss out on the obvious truth that might does, in fact, determine what is right. When culture A conquers culture B what is right for A becomes what is right for B. It's not as if you can ignore this!

No. What you mean is that what A believes is right is imposed on B. That does not make what A believes right, right. The Nazis forced Jews into gas chambers. That does not mean that forcing Jews into gas chambers was right. And, I am not ignoring that the Nazis forced Jews into gas chambers. The argument:

1. A thinks it is right to do y.
2. A does y.

Therefore, 3. it is right to do y,

Is obviously invalid.

It never follows from the fact that something is believed true that it is true. You know that.

But that doesn't make any sense though. So a culture in power would not adopt the moral values of it's conquerors. The stronger society would impose it's moral values even onto those who it conquered.
It seems to me that you can't realize that your own morality is subjective, yet to you, you see this subjectivity as objective as if everyone else agrees with your morality. You don't have to go very far to find out that not everyone agrees with your moral system. Yet you will only argue that they are wrong morally and you are right. You can't see the flaw in your own reasoning?

What does not make sense? You are confusing two theses.

Cultural Relativism just says what a culture thinks is moral is relative to that culture.

Moral Relativism says what is really right, in fact, is determined by that culture.

The latter doesn't follow from the first. The first is about what cultures do, and is true. The latter is about what is right and wrong, and is false. They are two different theses.

No. What you mean is that what A believes is right is imposed on B. That does not make what A believes right, right. The Nazis forced Jews into gas chambers. That does not mean that forcing Jews into gas chambers was right. And, I am not ignoring that the Nazis forced Jews into gas chambers. The argument:

1. A thinks it is right to do y.
2. A does y.

Therefore, 3. it is right to do y,

Is obviously invalid.

It never follows from the fact that something is believed true that it is true. You know that.

Yes I am aware of that, however I think you are dividing them as if they do not influence the other. Going back to my original argument.

it's not invalid given moral relativism. What one thinks is right....is right for him. Right would not even exist beyond what one thinks is right. And right and wrong would turn on the whim of the belief of the individual in question

not to mention you are attempting to the use the statement(well actually 1 and 3), "A thinks it is right to do y." as a proposition, which apparently it is not

No, if you mean that the moral relativist believes that argument is valid, then you are right. But, naturally, the question is whether the moral relativist's belief that the argument is valid is true. The fact that he believes it is valid does not make it valid, does it?

In general, it does not follow from the fact that A believes that p, that p. So why should it follow from the fact that the moral relativist believes the argument is valid, that the argument is valid. Obviously it does not. Or is logic also relative?

No, if you mean that the moral relativist believes that argument is valid, then you are right. But, naturally, the question is whether the moral relativist's belief that the argument is valid is true. The fact that he believes it is valid does not make it valid, does it?

In general, it does not follow from the fact that A believes that p, that p. So why should it follow from the fact that the moral relativist believes the argument is valid, that the argument is valid. Obviously it does not. Or is logic also relative?

Ken, would not the following conclusion just fall out of how Cultural Moral Relativists view the situation? At what point does the beliefs of conquered culture B cease to be true within B's culture when A conquers B and the cultures become one?

Thesis: Every culture determines what is morally right relative to that culture, so,

Culture A believes A is true.
Therefore, A is true and morally right relative to culture A.

Culture B believes ~A is true.
Therefore, ~A is true and morally right relative to culture B

A conquers B. Culture B becomes part of culture A.

Therefore, the might/force/command of A makes A true for sub-culture B.

So, the might of A determines what is right for sub-culture B.

The issue about the individuation of cultures and societies is a standing issue in cultural anthropology. I am not up on it, but a lot has been written on it. What makes you think that because A conquers B that B becomes part of A? There are a lot of counterexamples. For example Anglo-Saxon culture never became part of Norman culture after the conquest (they remained quite different) and China is a textbook example of the conquerers becoming a part of the society they conquered.

given moral relativism this only says something about the conquering society. But beyond that, the whole fact that one society would conquer another demonstrates a might makes right attitude.

The issue about the individuation of cultures and societies is a standing issue in cultural anthropology. I am not up on it, but a lot has been written on it. What makes you think that because A conquers B that B becomes part of A? There are a lot of counterexamples. For example Anglo-Saxon culture never became part of Norman culture after the conquest (they remained quite different) and China is a textbook example of the conquerers becoming a part of the society they conquered.

given moral relativism this only says something about the conquering society. But beyond that, the whole fact that one society would conquer another demonstrates a might makes right attitude.

You are now only repeating your position. I can repeat mine if you like.

present something where my position is not pertinent and I'll be sure to adjust accordingly

I did not say your position is not pertinent. I said that you were only repeating your position. I already know what it is, so you needn't repeat it. I have argued against it. Have you a counterargument?

I have argued against it. Have you a counterargument?

Agreed, and the fact remains that the a world governed by relativism would necessarily have to be one of either all out anarchy or might makes right. Since the world is not run by all out anarchy it only leaves might makes right....but might makes right would then become a universe moral truth thereby refuting relativism in the first place. Therefore relativism must be false.