The Instigator
21MolonLabe
Pro (for)
The Contender
Kikomori
Con (against)

God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Kikomori has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/9/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,003 times Debate No: 106521
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (0)

 

21MolonLabe

Pro

Rules:

1. No forfeits
2. Citations may be posted in comments
3. No new arguments in the summary
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)
8. Violation of any of these rules, or of the debate structure, merits a loss
9. A Burden of Proof has not been assigned as this is a common point of contention, and I imagine it will be brought up some time during the debate

Structure:

R1. Acceptance.
R2. Pro and Con present their cases.
R3. Pro and Con rebut the other's case.
R4. Pro and Con respond to rebuttals.
R5. Pro and Con summarize their cases. No new arguments.

Definitions:

God - An extremely powerful, incorporeal mind that created the universe and is the source of morality.
Kikomori

Con

I accept this debate challenge and agree to all your rules
Debate Round No. 1
21MolonLabe

Pro


Cosmology
P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2) The Universe began to exist.
C1) Therefore, the Universe has a cause.


P1 is rooted in metaphysical Principles of Causation and Sufficient Reason. Everything must have an explanation of a cause, including the universe. Theist and atheist philosophers alike affirm this premise. Even renowned atheist philosopher, David Hume affirms it, “But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that that anything might arise without a cause.[1]” Also, the negation of P1 leads to absurdity. We do not observe things just popping into existence without any cause, and we have no reason to believe that such is possible.


P2 is proven by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem and the properties of infinity. The BGV theorem states that any universe which has been, on average, expanding throughout its history must have a beginning [2]. The universe is expanding [3]. Thus it has a beginning.


An actual infinite can't be formed by successive addition, which the past has been formed by. So the universe cannot be actually infinite. This is obviously true because there are no 2 finite numbers you can add together to get infinity. Time can only be potentially infinite, but not an actually infinite.


What’s more, you cannot transverse an infinity. Suppose you told someone that you were going to jump into a hole of infinite length. You would never hit the bottom because you would have an infinite amount of length before you got there. The same goes for time. If the past was infinite prior to today, January 5th, it would take an infinite amount of time to get here. It would never reach today as there would be an endless amount of time to traverse before you reached today.


Thus there is a cause of the universe. It must be timeless and immaterial since both time and material arose with the universe [4]. It must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent, since it caused a universe with no preexisting material. It must be intelligent since it caused such an ordered universe. It must be a free agent since there were no preexisting conditions to determine how it acted. Since it is free, it must have the capacity to be personal. A timeless, immaterial, extremely powerful (if not omnipotent), intelligent, personal, free agent that caused the universe to exist is the very definition of God.


Idealism
P1) The mind exists.
P2) Mind is not reducible to non-mind.
C1) Irreducible mental substance exists.
P3) Dualism is false.
C2) All is mind.
P4) Solipsism is false.
C3) Theism is true.


P1 is universally accepted, as it is contradictory to posit that the opposite is true. Whether you believe that the mind is an emergent property of the brain, or a different substance altogether, you cannot deny the existence of the mind.


So for P2 to be true, I must show that there are properties that the mind can have which matter cannot. This can easily be done by considering 2 things: Feeling pain and an electrical signal to the brain. They cannot be the same thing. What we experience is a correlation between the two. One can conceive of a possible world where one can have the feeling of pain without an electrical signal. As atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel says, "If a mental event really is a physical event in this sense [the same sense that H2O is Water], and nothing else, then the physical event by itself, once it's physical properties are understood, should likewise be sufficient for the taste of sugar or the feeling of pain... But it doesn't seem to be.[5]" He goes on to say that for any physical event, there should be a physical event without any experience. However taste seems to be something extra, something produced rather than constituted by the brain state. So it can't be identical to the brain state in the way that water is identical to H2O[6].


Thus we arrive at conclusion 1.


There are 2 kinds of dualism. Substance Dualism and Property Dualism. Basically Substance Dualism holds both mind and matter are fundamental. However there is a problem. The immaterial mind can move a material body, but a material body moves via a material force. Thus if a mind can interact with a body, it must produce material forces. However if it produces material forces, it can not really be immaterial. Thus substance dualism is self-contradictory upon close inspection. This shows that matter and mind cannot interact. So if the mind exists, and it cannot interact with physical substances, then physical substances cannot exist.


One could try to use the 1st 2 premises to arrive at the conclusion that Property Dualism is true. Property Dualism is the belief that the mental world is just a property of the physical world and therefore doesn't reduce to physical substances. However, this is neither parsimonious nor verifiable and should be dismissed.


Thus we arrive at Conclusion 2. If all that exists is the mind then we are faced with 2 options: Solipsism and Theism. Either I can only know that my mind exists, or there must be some transcendent mind to ground reality.


P4 is easily defended. All we have to do is simply note that while matter does not exist independent of measurement, we cannot control how the universe works, and so it cannot be a creation of only your conscious mind. Not to mention that solipsism is existentially contradictory. Thus some transcendent mind must exist to ground reality. Thus C3 is true.


Morality
P1) Morality is a rational enterprise.
P2) Moral Realism is true.
P3) Human imperfection and disagreement cannot allow morality to be grounded in human rationality.
P4) Morality is grounded in a necessary, rational, sentient source.
C) That source is God.


P1 is pretty uncontroversial. What is moral is discerned through reasoning, not through empirical investigation. No amount of just observing and action can help us determine if it is moral or not.


We have 5 reasons to believe that P2 is true. The first of which is the argument from Epistemic Realism. If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts don't either. However epistemic facts do exist, so moral facts must exist. Epistemic facts and moral facts work almost identically. The problem is how can a moral relativist prescribe epistemic "oughts", but reject moral "oughts?" For example, I post my argument and you respond, you will probably agree that I ought not use logical fallacies to argue, or use biased and outdated sources. While if I do this, I will not be doing anything morally wrong, it still describes a way that I ought to act. The question arises, "Why ought I act in that way?" Which the moral relativist cannot justify.


The second reason we should accept P2 is the Argument from Experience. Mere empirical observation shows that it is extremely hard, if not impossible to live out moral subjectivism. A good example of this is Jean Paul Sartre, a moral relativist who spoke out against genocide. But why would you try to cast your beliefs onto others? If morality is subjective, why should it matter how people are treated? If you speak out against the actions of an individual or a group, you think they are committing actions that you think they should stop, regardless about what they believe about the morality of their behavior. But that would mean that you believe that there is some moral reality and that it isn't all relative. Simply put, moral relativism cannot be put into practice.


Reason 3 why we should accept P2 is the problem of Moral Disagreement. Not only do we act as if some actions are moral and others are not, but we converse as if Morality was objective. For example, some say that abortion is wrong while others claim that it is a right. Logic says that both views cannot be correct. But if Morality is relative, then we have no right to condemn the actions of others, yet we do anyway. In essence, if Morality was subjective, we would not actively disagree with others moral views. Yet we do, so Moral Realism must be true.


The fourth argument to support of P2 is from Moral Progress. Moral Progress could only make sense if realism was true. For example, we believe that it is progress that slavery is now considered unacceptable. If we consider this progress, it would only make sense if we were working towards an objective standard. So if you accept that things such as the unacceptableness of slavery as moral progress, then one must believe in a moral standard.


The fifth and final reason we should accept P2 is because moral realism is intuitive. If we see an infant being tortured, we would not intuitively think, "Who am I to judge how a parent treats his or her child?" On the contrary, we would be disgusted, and would hopefully call CPS or the police. But why? Because the idea that there is an absolute right and wrong is self evident and intuitive. The burden is on the skeptic to demonstrate that our intuition is wrong. We are not sceptic of our experiences of the physical world, unless we have a good reason. Likewise, we should not be skeptical of our moral intuition unless we have a good reason.


Moving on to P3. It is pretty self explanatory. Humans, not having complete knowledge, can't know all the facts. Everyone fails to fully know the facts and perform moral duties. On top of that, humans are contingent beings, so an objective morality could never be grounded in human rationality.


P4 follows logically from the first 3. Since an objective morality cannot be grounded in something contingent, then it must be grounded in something necessary. And since morality is a rational enterprise, it must be grounded in a rational source. And since non-sentient things can't be rational, it must also be grounded in a sentient source.


Since God is a necessary sentient being, it follows from the premises that God is the source of Morality.


The resolution is affirmed.

Kikomori

Con

God fundamentally was invented by people to explain the world they lived in. Man made God to try and make sense of the world that they lived in, and religion has increasingly been forced to adapt to the scientific advancements we have made since the conception of religion.
I would first like to draw attention to the burden of proof. By it's very nature, the burden of proof lies with the theist. In simple terms, If I said that a microscopic teapot orbited the sun between Earth and Mars, then it would be my Job to prove that my claim is true. Essentially, the person making the claim has to back it up. This is true across any debate, including this debate. As my opposition has made the claim, that God is real, It Is my opponent's job to prove his claim true, not my job to prove that it is not.
With that being said, however, I would like to present my case with a very simple statement. God, by His own definition, cannot exist - at least the Abrahamic deity.
Back to my example of the teapot. If I, along with my original claim, I said that the teapot was entirely made of china, and entirely made of steel, by the law of noncontradiction, the teapot cannot exist, as It cannot be entirely made of two materials at the same time.
When we apply this logic to God, we arrive at the same outcome - the Abrahamic God's qualities are self contradictory, He cannot exist.
To be clear, the Abrahamic God Is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent.
An omnipotent being cannot exist. This is best outlined with the omnipotent being paradox - "could God create a rock that even He cannot lift?" As I am sure most are aware, the answer is either yes, and God cannot lift the rock, or no, he cannot create the rock. Either way, a being cannot be omnipotent.
Secondly, with an omniscient being, freewill cannot exist. If any being is omniscient, that being would know everything that is going to happen in the future, and if you did otherwise (had freewill), the being would not be omniscient. This fundamentally contradicts the principle many religions hold of reward " heaven " for good actions, and punishment " hell " for bad actions. If we don't have freewill, then heaven or hell are not justified, as we never had any choice to do right or wrong.
The Problem of Evil is also contradictory of God's existence. An omniscient being would know about evil, an omnipotent being would be able to stop evil and an omnibenevolent being would want to stop evil. Yet evil exists. This means that God is either not all powerful, or not all good.
To conclude, God, by His own definition, cannot exist.
Debate Round No. 2
21MolonLabe

Pro

Russell's Teapot
By the very nature of the Teapot analogy, we have good prima facie reasons to believe that it is unlikely that a microscopic teapot is orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. Mainly, that a teapot is inherently unlikely to be in space. The only way that a microscopic teapot could occur in space are: 1st, someone would have to make a microscopic teapot. 2nd, someone would then have to put it there. Or some freakish natural event would have to launch it into orbit. Now as far as we know, neither conditions 1 or 2 have been met. It begins with an object whose existence in outer space is intrinsically unbelievable ,and ends in the conclusion that belief in the object's probable existence is irrational.

My second objection is specifically to your statement, "the person making the [positive] claim has to back it up." Suppose in the resolution, "God Exists," we exchanged "God" for "Donald Trump." It seems ridiculous to suggest that the person who is making the positive claim has the burden to prove that Donald Trump exists.

Even if I am misconstruing what you said, and you do really mean that anyone making a claim has to back it up; I would contend that you are in fact making the claim that God does not exist.


As Alvin Plantinga said, "[L]ack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism. [1]"

Thus, the burden of proof is not solely on me, rather we share it.

Omnipotence
There are 2 types of omnipotence. Common and Maximal omnipotence. Common omnipotence means that one can do anything that is logically possible. If then, we ascribe common omnipotence to God, the paradox does not apply. On this view of omnipotence, it's not that God lacks the power to create the rock, or to lift it. It's that the task itself is nonsense. So the supposed problem only applies to maximal omnipotence.

Maximal omnipotence is the ability to do anything. Even the logically impossible. Even if God does not have common omnipotence and rather has maximal omnipotence, the paradox still fails. I could not have found a better way to say this than DDO user InquireTruth, who puts it this way:

"[T]he only reason such a God could not lift a rock too heavy for himself to carry would be because it is logically impossible. But that is irrelevant, because inherent in the definition of maximal omnipotence is the ability to do the logically impossible. So the statement, "God can lift a rock too heavy for himself to carry" may very well be logically impossible, but it would, per the definition of maximal omnipotence, be perfectly within God's power to do so. So the paradox fails because its own inference of maximal omnipotence makes its application of logic irrelevant! The paradox assumes that God ought to be able to bring about logically impossible states of affairs. So it is an application of consistency to believe that a God who can realize the logically impossible state of a stone too heavy to carry can also realize the logically impossible state of his carrying that same heavy stone [2]."

Basically if God possesses maximal omnipotence, which the argument assumes; any attempt that uses logic to show that God can't exist is pointless as He can defy logic. Thus, Paradox of the stone is self refuting as it assumes that God possesses an attribute that makes Him irrefutable by definition, and then tries to refute it.

Omniscience
Before I rebut this point, I would like to make an observation. God, as defined in round 1, is not said to be Omniscient. So this point doesn't really count as evidence against the God that I'm arguing for. So whether I refute this argument or not has no bearing on the outcome of the debate. However, I will take the time to rebut it.

The notion that knowledge of an proposition before it happens undermines the idea of free will rests on a modal fallacy. As Norman Swartz points out, the argument is basically this:

If x knows that P then P must be true. But if P must be true, then P cannot be false. Any proposition which cannot be false is not only true, but necessarily true. Thus if x knows that P, then P is necessarily true. By the transposition (or contraposition) theorem, we can restate this last conclusion in this manner: if P is not necessarily true (i.e. is contingent or necessarily false), then it is false that x knows that P. In short, the only knowable propositions are necessary truths, e.g. the truths of logic and mathematics. All other truths, though possibly highly confirmable, are ultimately not knowable and must remain a matter of opinion only[3].

The fallacy arises in the ambiguity of the first premise. The correct interpretation of the first premise is: [](Kxp --> p)

However, the way it is interpreted here is: Kxp --> []p

In essence, if P1 was interpreted in the 2nd way, we could not know contingent propositions to be true, only necessary propositions. However, we can know contingent propositions to be true, so the 2nd interpretation is false.

However, suppose it doesn't succumb to a modal fallacy. There are other reasons to believe that this argument has no merit.

I believe that C.S. Lewis has a good response to this.

"God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call 'tomorrow' is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call 'today.' All the days are 'Now' for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them, because, though you have lost yesterday. He has not.

He does not 'foresee' you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already 'Now' for Him [4]."

Problem of Evil
The statements, "an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God exists," and, "Evil exists," are not logically inconsistent. I.e. there isn't any explicit contradiction between the 2. There must be some assumptions made to posit that they are contradictory. There are 2 assumptions made. First, that if God is omnipotent, then He can create any world he wants. Second, that if God is all-loving, he prefers a world without suffering.

As stated before, there are 2 kinds of omnipotence. I personally believe that God has common omnipotence. He can do anything that is logically possible. I contend that it is logically impossible to create a world in which we have free will, but are also forced to do good. For if we are forced to do good, we are not freely choosing to do good. Thus the first assumption is false.

The second point is also false. There are cases where we allow suffering in order to bring about a greater good. For instance, having wisdom teeth extracted. After the operation is complete, your mouth can hurt for days, but pulling wisdom teeth can prevent damage to other teeth and having crooked teeth. The burden is on the atheist to prove that there are absolutely no circumstances in which God would allow suffering. I would contend that we are not in a position to say whether God lacks reasons to permit suffering. For we have limited space, time, intelligence and insight. So suffering may seem pointless in our limited scope of understanding, but the truth is we just can't tell.

Sources and Symbolism Key will be in comments.
Kikomori

Con

Cosmology
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (the form which you presented in your debate) is trivial, and becomes redundant upon further questioning. I would like to speak about premise one " "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." What truly began to exist? Everything in the universe hasn't simply began to exist, it is simply a rearrangement of pre-existing particles and cells. Take a car, for example. The car hasn't just began to exist, but the metals that were in the earth were used to create the car. It didn't begin to exist. The only thing that has begun to exist, is the universe itself. So now we are left with an argument that states:

P1) The Universe has a cause.
P2) The Universe began to exist.
C1) Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

As P2 can be left out, as it is now redundant, we now have:

P1) The Universe has a cause.
C1) Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

You also mention in your reasoning for P1 that, "We do not observe things just popping into existence without any cause," but I would argue that this is up for debate, due to new research and discoveries into quantum physics. I will link to some websites that can explain infinitely better than I can in the comments.

The argument also commits the Fallacy of Composition. By definition, there is no 'outside the Universe,' so all we can base evidence off is observations we make in the universe. By saying that, " Everything that begins to exist [within the Universe] has a cause," you are applying characteristics to the whole universe from the part of it that we observe. A simplified version of this would be, "The bricks in the wall are small, therefore the wall is small."
I will admit that this isn't game-ending, as, using the same analogy, "The bricks in the wall are red, therefore the wall is red," does make logical sense.

Idealism

There are a huge amount of issues with the way you argued your case for Idealism. You use inductive reasoning and rely heavily on each premise to hold up the argument. Essentially, if you were to disprove one premise, your whole argument falls apart.

Your reasoning behind premise two is illogical. The fact is that pain is an electrical impulse sent to the brain in order to alert us to something being wrong and to help us resolve an issue. The fact that pain is an electrical impulse is also shown by scientists currently developing robots to feel pain. Robots obviously do not have a mind or consciousness. Taste works in much the same way, with taste buds sending information to the brain about the food, which creates the sensation we know as taste. As the mind is an emergent property of the brain, it is deeply rooted in the material world, and is in fact part of it.

Morality

It is incredibly likely that morality is a product of evolution, because when natural selection is correct, it makes sense for an animal to be moral to aid with the survival of the species. This is shown by humans closest evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees, having qualities such as empathy and forming friendships.
Morality would have also evolved with the emergence of society, law and order. What is incredibly unlikely, however, is that a being created man to be moral. This is shown by different cultures use of different laws and some more primitive tribes on the planet having very different moral codes to what is deemed acceptable in modern day society. You justify premise 3 by saying asserting that "objective morality," must be true. However, society bases itself around subjective morality " such as a jury in court and so on. Morality isn't objective, as it changes. For example, in the 18th century, slavery was seen as morally permissible, but now it is seen as morally incorrect. Thus morality cannot be objective as you claim it to be.
Debate Round No. 3
21MolonLabe

Pro

Cosmology
I find it comical that I was going to accuse Con of committing the fallacy of composition and then I saw that he accused me of the same. Anyway, allow me to explain why he commits one. He claims that a car can't just begin to exist. And what reason does he give? Because the particles that made the car already existed. This assumes that the whole (the car) has the same properties as it's parts (the metals) in that it is already existing. It seems ridiculous to suggest that every car has always existed.

Even of he doesn't commit the fallacy, Con's reformulation is still wrong. The proper reformulation would be, "If the universe began to exist, then it has a cause." So, P2 is still necessary and the argument is not circular as Con would make it seem.

Con can post links all he likes in the comments, but if he wanted to refute this point, he should have done so within the parameters of the debate. Because he didn't mention which part of quantum physics refutes my notion that, "We do not observe things just popping into existence without any cause," I'll assume that Con is alluding to quantum fluctuations. Atheists argue that quantum fluctuations are in fact nothing. So the virtual particles that pop in and out of existence could possibly come into existence without any cause. However quantum fluctuations do have massive amounts of energy [1]. So it isn't really nothing and therefore not uncaused. Second, the universe's slow expansion rate suggests that the total energy in the universe is relatively low [2]. So because of the relatively low energy in the universe, it couldn't be a product of a quantum fluctuation. So not only is the *only* possible exception to the notion that "nothing comes from nothing," not even an exception, as it has lots of energy. But it also couldn't have caused the universe.

Con argues that the KCA commits the fallacy of composition. But that’s a blatant misunderstanding of the fallacy of composition. I would commit this fallacy if I argued that *because* every part of the universe has a cause, then the universe as a whole has a cause. When reading the argument, you will see no suggestion of the kind. What I argued was “What begins to exist must have a cause." And I supported it with metaphysical Principles of Causation and Sufficient Reason. The fallacy doesn’t apply here and therefore Con’s argument fails.

Idealism
I realise that if you can refute one of my premises, then the argument fails. That's how logic works. I fail to see how that is a huge issue.

Con's argument is focused on how we taste or feel pain. But that is not the problem. The problem is that the concept of taste or pain are inexplicable on materialism.

And I would argue that these robots are not actually feeling pain. They are programmed to avoid certain things, and when those things happen, the robots withdraw. "To test it, they fitted a robotic arm with a fingertip sensor that could detect pressure and temperature [3]."
So they gave it a sensor and told it what counts as pain. Doesn't really count.

As atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel said, "The intrinsic properties of water, its density, electrical conductivity, index of refraction, liquidity between 0 and 100 degrees centigrade, etc, are all fully explained by H2O and its properties. The physical property of H2O are by themselves sufficient for water [4]." However, the physical properties of sugar do not carry with them the taste thereof. And is thus not sufficient for its taste. In essence, even if someone knows every physical fact pertinent to sugar, they still can't know what it tastes like unless they consume it. However on materialism, one should be able to know what sugar taste like without ever tasting it, just by knowing the physical facts. Thus taste cannot be purely physical.

Con asserts that, "the mind is an emergent property of the brain, it is deeply rooted in the material world." However if all that exists is the material world, then everything that makes us who we are would have come together via natural selection, to aid us solely in survival. This would include the chemistry of the brain and its functions. If this is true, then every belief and thought that it has is likewise is meant solely to aid in survival. This would include in the belief in materialism. If you believe that materialism is true, then you have to believe that you believe it is true because your brain decided that belief in materialism is beneficial for survival, not because it is actually true. Thus materialism is circular. On materialism, we lack free will (although it's pretty evident that we have free will and every attempt to disprove it has been controversial at best), and we cannot trust our beliefs as there is no necessary equivocation between what is useful and what is true. For example, Ptolemaic astronomy. It was devised around 150 A.D. and persisted until the 16th and 17th centuries [5]. For centuries it was used for navigation, even though it was not accurate [6].

Morality
I would like to point out that Con drops all of my points regarding why Moral Realism is true.

Con says, "It makes sense for an animal to be moral to aid with the survival of the species." But later he flatly contradicts himself when he says, "Morality isn't objective." How can animals or anything for that matter, act in a moral manner of there is no such thing as Moral Realism? How can one act correctly if there is no correct way to act?

Also, if morality came about via evolution, then we have no reason to think that it is objective. It would be arbitrary. And as I said earlier, all 5 reasons that I gave to believe that Moral Realism is true have not been addressed So we can safely assume that morality is in fact objective. Which would mean that evolution can't account for it.

If we are basing what is good off of what helps a species survive, that in itself raises questions. Rape may help a species survive. Does that make it good? Killing the weak and handicapped might help improve a species chance for survival. Does that mean that the Holocaust a good thing? Things that we all claim to be wrong are justifiable if what is good is what helps a species survive. And the questions don't stop there. The biggest question is this: Why is the survival of our species a good thing? If we are basing what is good of off what helps us survive, then what moral justification do we have for continuing the human race?

And then Con asserted, without any evidence mind you that it is, "incredibly unlikely, however, is that a being created man to be moral." If you go back and read, I never made such a claim. In fact, I claimed quite the opposite. Premise 3 of the Moral Argument that I presented stated, "Human imperfection and disagreement cannot allow morality to be grounded in human rationality." I even took it a step further when I further explained that premise, "It is pretty self explanatory. Humans, not having complete knowledge, can't know all the facts. Everyone fails to fully know the facts and perform moral duties." There is a difference between knowing what is moral and acting moral.

Next, Con asserts that since people believe in different moral codes, that objective morality does not exist. This is false. I would argue that there are two main reasons why this is so. The first is that of mental illness. Obviously, people with mental illnesses are not in the right state of mind, and thus can have wrong ideas regarding what is true. The second reason is that of factual differences. For instance, there are certain tribes in Africa that believe that people with physical abnormalities are impure and influence others to do evil [7]. It is because of this, that they practice infanticide, and dispose of them without a proper burial [8]. As you can see, their belief in killing certain babies, is based on the factual error that deformed infants are basically cursed. It's beliefs about facts, not morality that cause differences. So when these 2 are accounted for, I would argue that people widely agree on basic moral facts.

Lastly, Con says that because we now view slavery as wrong, then morality isn't objective. However I used this as one of my 5 reasons why Moral Realism must be true. I'll leave this one to the voters to decide. Even if they find that slavery refutes Moral Realism rather than provides a good reason to accept it, I still have 4 reasons left to accept my argument.

All sources in comments.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 3 months ago
21MolonLabe
Sources for Round 4
[1] https://profmattstrassler.com...

[2] Ibid

3] http://www.bbc.com...

[4] https://books.google.com...

[5] https://www.britannica.com...

[6] http://www.pbs.org...

[7] Petros, Gezahegn (2000)."The Karo of the lower Omo Valley: subsistence, social organisation and relations with neighbouring groups. Dept. of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Administration, Addis Ababa University. p."57.

[8] Ibid
Posted by 21MolonLabe 3 months ago
21MolonLabe
Symbol Key
K = has knowledge of
x = a being (in this case God)
p = a proposition
--> = denotes an "if, then" statement
[] = is necessarily true
() = do what's in the parentheses first
Posted by 21MolonLabe 3 months ago
21MolonLabe
Sources for Round 3

[1] https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

[2] http://www.debate.org...

[3] https://www.sfu.ca...

[4] C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity," 2002, p. 83
Posted by Kikomori 3 months ago
Kikomori
"Knowledge is what is and what has not what will be."
This is again simply false. If something knows EVERYTHING, that includes the future.

"Why must we survive?"
We, as a species must survive to pass on our genes. That"s why, for example, a bee may sting something to allow the hive to survive, because it is beneficial to the species and allows it to continue.
Posted by Kikomori 3 months ago
Kikomori
"Knowledge is what is and what has not what will be."
This is again simply false. If something knows EVERYTHING, that includes the future.

"Why must we survive?"
We, as a species must survive to pass on our genes. That"s why, for example, a bee may sting something to allow the hive to survive, because it is beneficial to the species and allows it to continue.
Posted by Kikomori 3 months ago
Kikomori
"Knowledge is what is and what has not what will be."
This is again simply false. If something knows EVERYTHING, that includes the future.

"Why must we survive?"
We, as a species must survive to pass on our genes. That"s why, for example, a bee may sting something to allow the hive to survive, because it is beneficial to the species and allows it to continue.
Posted by Kikomori 3 months ago
Kikomori
"Knowledge is what is and what has not what will be."
This is again simply false. If something knows EVERYTHING, that includes the future.

"Why must we survive?"
We, as a species must survive to pass on our genes. That"s why, for example, a bee may sting something to allow the hive to survive, because it is beneficial to the species and allows it to continue.
Posted by Kikomori 3 months ago
Kikomori
"Knowledge is what is and what has not what will be."
This is again simply false. If something knows EVERYTHING, that includes the future.

"Why must we survive?"
We, as a species must survive to pass on our genes. That"s why, for example, a bee may sting something to allow the hive to survive, because it is beneficial to the species and allows it to continue.
Posted by PhilosophyandReligion 3 months ago
PhilosophyandReligion
I've seen how the self is an illusion.
Posted by PhilosophyandReligion 3 months ago
PhilosophyandReligion
Why must we survive? That's my only question.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.