Atheists cannot adequately explain morality
Objective morals are morals that are inherently true regardless of society, culture, time period, or beliefs.
By "God" I mean the supreme being (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) and creator of the universe.
The first round is for you to present your case as to why objective morals can exist in the absence of God. The burden of proof is on my opponent.
By accepting this debate you agree to these terms and rules. Thanks! Over to my opponent.
Thanks con. I am referring to a God that has traits of the Christian God.
I'll paraphrase your major points while staying true to your logic.
1. I am an atheist, but I know that objective morals exist. I believe they exist because causing harm to other animals and stealing is wrong.
If you agree that objective morality exists, I will then ask you how can anything definitively be "right" and "wrong" morally if we have no deliberate purpose for our existence? If we evolved from non-living material, how can a definitive purpose exist among the human race? Objective morals require that we have a purpose. Why? Because objectives don't exist in an objectiveless world unless you create objectives for yourself but then all morality would be subjective. Murder without cause and rape against someone's will is always wrong. Why though? Our moral code tells us that it is wrong. But why do we have a moral code that directs us for/against any kind of "wrong" purpose if we have no purpose to begin with?
2. I didn't need God to give me my objective morals. Humans have a sense of right and wrong because we are naturally empathetic.
My argument is that objective morals can't exist without a God. Either God exists or he doesn't. There is no middle ground. If a supreme being does not exist, it follows that we have a spontaneous, unconscious, non-deliberate cause for our existence. If God does exist, it follows that have a purposeful existence to do God's will. Since the will of an omnibenevolent God is for us to treat each other with unconditional love, it follows that this is the same principle guiding the moral code of each human being. Empathy is a way of understanding how others feel. But why do human beings care about how others human beings feel if we sincerely have no objective purpose in life? If one human being wants to harm another, why is harm considered a "bad" purpose if we really don't have any purpose at all?
Jumping right in.
Here are my paraphrased arguments from the previous round:
Previous round, Pro: How can an objective moral truth exist when our existence is objectiveless?
and . . .
Previous round, Pro: If objective moral truths require that we have a purpose, how can any intent (purposeful) existence of the human race exist if we're the product of undirected random mutations?
[paraphrasing] my opponent responds . . .
Con: 1) Purpose doesn't matter.
Con: 2) Morals are necessary for suriving in a world that requires cooperative order.
1) my opponent refuses to agree that objectives require a purpose. What is an objective? It's an intentional fulfillment of a requirement to reach a specified purpose. If no purpose exists among the purposeless human race, how can any objective exist among us in the form of objective morality? It's a simple logical contradiction.
2) cooperative order presupposes that our existence is to promote the evolution of the human race. If we sincerely have no purpose for our existence (resulting from undirected, random mutation) then no cooperative goal to enhance our continued survival can exist.
Thank you, I look forward to your specific rebuttals to my points of contention, con.
For my other point, there are many different theories for our purpose, I just don't believe any I've heard. The one we are arguing over is that we are here to serve God. So until you can prove He exists, and that He made us to serve him, none of your arguments are valid/ sufficient.