The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
awesumdebator
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A benevolent God as the source of morality cannot be logically justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 860 times Debate No: 15632
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

socialpinko

Pro

This subject has come up in the religion forums in the past and I wanted to do a full debate to explore the subject further.

Arguments will begin in round 2.

God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.[1]

Benevolence: disposition to do good[2]

Morality: Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct or a system of ideas that fall into those same categories.[3]

Logically: Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.[4]

Justified: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid.[5]

Good luck to whoever may accept this challenge.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org...
[4]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[5]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
awesumdebator

Con

god is real there is no doubt about it.scientist say nothing created something out of nothing.this bascially means there was nothing and then in a bang something was created!!!!!!!!!!yet this same so callled proffesionals dont beleive that God created the nworld out of nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!c'mon peopel use your common sense.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

I assume since my opponent has not mentioned any problems with my definitions, we can accept them for the rest of the debate. I will provide my argument after I respond to my opponent's statements in the first round.

"god is real there is no doubt about it."

The point of this debate is not whether or not god exists, but whether god be logically justified as the source of morality.

"scientist say nothing created something out of nothing.this bascially means there was nothing and then in a bang something was created!!!!!!!!!!yet this same so callled proffesionals dont beleive that God created the nworld out of nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

This debate is also not about the origins of the universe or what scientists claim about it. I don't care to debate this right now as it does not keep with the resolution.

In my argument 'P' will stand for premise and 'C' will stand for conclusion. I will begin with two premises from which I will base my argument on.

P1-God is benevolent.[1]
P2-God is sovereign over the universe.
C1-God determines the truth- value of ethical propositions(From P2)
C2-God is benevolent prior to his decision as to what truth-values ethical propositions will have(From P1 and C1)
C3-Nothing is good or bad, right or wrong, prior to God's decision as to what truth-values ethical propositions will have(From C1)
C4-God is good prior to his decision as to what truth-value ethical propositions will have(From P1)
C5- Nothing is good or bad, right or wrong, prior to God's decision as to what truth-values ethical propositions will have(From P2 and C1)
C6-Something (God) is good prior to God's decision as to what truth-values ethical propositions will have and nothing is good or bad, right or wrong, prior to God's decision as to what truth-values ethical propositions will have(From C4 and C5)

Based on logical analysis it has been shown that god canot be the source of morality. I now await my opponent's response.
[1]The god I am describing is benevolent in that it is the way I set up this debate in the resolution.
awesumdebator

Con

what do the brackets mean/god is goood the biblle says that.it all comes down to what u believe
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

"what do the brackets mean/god is goood the biblle says that.it all comes down to what u believe"

The brackets [ ] tell the reader to refer to another pair of brackets at the bottom of the page for further explanation of a sentence or definition.

And the Christian god may be described as good and the source of morality in the Bible, but that does not necessarily make it true. I am attempting to show logically that this cannot be the case.

As to your claim that 'it all comes down to what u(sic) believe', perhaps that is the case for subjective thoughts like what kind of a person seems attractive to you. However I believe there is an objective answer to this question and I plan to show it using logic and reason.
awesumdebator

Con

there is even archeliogally evidence and proof that Jesus lived and did these miracles it is foolhardy not to acknowledge that
Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Pro

"there is even archeliogally(sic) evidence and proof that Jesus lived and did these miracles it is foolhardy not to acknowledge that"

I really don't think you understand what the point of this debate is. I am not debating on whether or not Jesus lived or was divine or that god even exists. I am simply arguing that it cannot be logically justified that god is the source of morality. I don't want to debate on whether god exists at the moment.

Please respond to my argument in the next round so we can make up for the wasting of Round 3.
awesumdebator

Con

your questions raise some deeply ethical questions.if god is not the source of morality then what is?where do we get our beliefs from?from our head?no its different for different people and religions.for example:its good to be honest,respect people etc. these are are god based bleifes proving that god is the source of morality.
i think i have a convincing argument
Debate Round No. 4
socialpinko

Pro

"if god is not the source of morality then what is?"

It is not my job to provide an alternative, only to show that god as the source of morality is not logically justified.

"where do we get our beliefs from?from our head?no its different for different people and religions."

Beliefs and morality are two different things but I think I understand what you mean. Again, I do not have to provide an alternative. To argue that the answer must be god because you cannot come up with a different one is incredibly fallacious.

"its good to be honest,respect people etc. these are are god based bleifes proving that god is the source of morality."

These views are purely subjective. You have brought no evidence that these are objectively correct. And even if they happened to be, how does that in any way prove that morals come from god?

I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments and she did not even attempt to refute mine. Therefore I urge a pro vote.


awesumdebator

Con

awesumdebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
socialpinkoawesumdebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "i think i have a convincing argument" - I don't think convince means what you think it means
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
socialpinkoawesumdebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's logic is based on equivocation; however, Con didn't even try. She seems incapable of coherent thought. I agree with her side of the debate, but in this debate I am forced to vote against her. I weep for my generation.