How is the validity of this?

[tavarish]

A-And as we become more interconnected language expands and words change definition, does this make them less usefull or useless?

Give me an example of "words changing definition", please.

B-Yes morals have been subjective. They are also local societal classifications agreeing on what's right and wrong. Some theists use a common morality of the ten commandments transcending lines of community. Who's to say that morality isn't scalable with no moral construct on one end and absolute morality on the other. It could be something that we're developing or evolving to.

Yes, that may be true, but to think that we already know it, and have known for some time, when there are obvious contradictions to such morality in holy books, is a bit arrogant. More to the point, the assertion that a deity that no one can demonstrate objectively has mandated this morality is even more dubious.

I don't know if there are moral absolutes, but I'm fairly certain that such a thing isn't known by anyone definitively.

C-God is demonstratable too, albeit far more subjective than math. demonstratability is falsifiability. I can, and have listed many congruent subjective points leading to a course objectively guiding my life demonstrating God's ordering hand.

Ok, I'll play along. Demonstrate to me that God exists.

D-Gray Areas= a term for a border in-between two or more things that is unclearly defined, a border that is hard to define or even impossible to define, or a definition where the distinction border tends to move. Such examples would be undefined areas in law, definitions and morality. Do I need to go deeper?

Law, definitions, and morality are all subjective. Of course there are gray areas. I thought you meant it more in terms of metaphysical/spiritual claims and how math can apply to those specific issues.

E-Math at its very core is subjective, as it requires a mind for its existence. Math absolutes presuppose a maximum optimal value (yet undefined/ unknown) or intentionally strip variable from an equation, but as there are no known absolutes (only supposed), there is a very historicaly plausable and useful reason to think it is true.

Math, at its core, isn't subjective, as 2+2 would not cease to equal 4 just because humans don't exist. The main reason math is used is because it has universal applications and does not rely on subjectivity, not in the least. If you're talking about math as a descriptive concept of reality, then I'd agree. However, morals, without people to practice them, would cease to exist. There's nothing universal about the moral value of slavery or killing someone.