The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

God can be proven to have the power to determine objective morality

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 574 times Debate No: 30472
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Thank you for consenting to debate me,

We will follow this format for this debate:

Round 1 - Intro
Round 2 - Opening Statements
Rounds 3 and 4 - Rebuttals
Round 5 - Closing Statements

Proper diction and courtesy are appreciated. Logical Fallacies and Trolling are NOT.


The moral principles that people claim to be "objective" usually coincide very well with what they feel subjectively to be true. When pressed to provide justification, the person in question will usually just fail to understand that morality might not be objective, and might consequently grow increasingly doubtful or hysterical as the subjective bases of their arguments are progressively revealed, as has been observed in recent times. This all is true, however, Humans have always used a god or being for a moral compass. Not all humans. But people have and still do. So I say 'YES IT CAN BE PROVEN" very much so that god has that power. People are still using him.
Debate Round No. 1


Hello, and thank you for debating.

I will be presenting my case through several contentions preceded by two definitions, all from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
Definition 1: Morality
"a doctrine or system of moral conduct"
Definition 2: Objective
"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind"

Let us further clarify that for the purpose of this resolution, we assume God's existence. I am arguing that if there is a God, he cannot determine objective morality, as implied by the resolution. In other words, the Pro must prove that God can determine what is moral and what is not, and that this moral code is objective. With that out of the way, let's move to my contentions.

Contention 1: Differences Between God and man
The differences between God and man are, as I understand them, omnipotence, omniscience, extratemporality and extraspaciality. Of these, the only one that would have an impact on the determination of any moral code is omnipotence, as seen in contention 2.

Contention 2: Might Makes Right is Subjective
Might makes right is the idea that the person with the most power becomes supreme moral arbitrator. However, this arbitrator's morality is an utterly non-objective construction, unless there was a previous moral framework not created by said arbitrator.

Contention 3: God's morality is subjective
God's primary feature is might. There is, I believe, no moral framework which accepts knowledge as the basis for determining morality, nor temporality or spaciality. The only quality God possesses that can be even remotely linked to morality is omnipotence, which leads us naturally into Might makes right. We have established that might makes right is inherently subejctive, unless there is a pre-existing moral code (which Pro cannot contend, as God would no longer be the arbitrator). Further, we see that if another being became mightier than God, this framework would grant that the new being's moral code trumped God's conclusively showing subjectivity.

Conclusion: God cannot determine objective morality
We have seen that the only way to justify the idea that God determines morality is through the MMR (Might makes right) system. Further, if we accept this, we see that his morality is inherently subjective, and therefore cannot rationally assert that God is an objective moral arbitrator.

Thank you.


I will also assume for this that god does so exist. And so, what you are saying is that, If I could prove that god does (MMR), then that would essentially prove it to be true. But as many would say "He works in mysterious ways" as through punishment and reward for your moral good or bad ways. However,I cannot prove that. You have great information in your debate but by your own information you could not prove he does not (MMR). Although most people do coincide "moral objectivity" with god. Not with self will or programming. If you press humans for a reason why they behave in a moral way their eventual conclusion is god. And that is because their is nothing else that says we must act in such a way other than instinct.
Debate Round No. 2


As we move into the rebuttal stage, I'd just like to establish a few agreed-upon points between both Pro and con
- For the purpose of this debate, God exists
- God's morality must be determined by MMR.
Now on to rebuttals of my opponents arguments-

Rebuttal 1 "God Works in Mysterious Ways"
I am willing to grant that God does indeed work in mysterious way through punishment and reward for your moral good or bad ways. However, the very thing we are debating is whether or not God can be an objective decider of morality, and so God's adherence to his own moral law (which I assert is subjective) proves nothing about the content of said moral law. If Adolf Hitler were in God's position, he could work in mysterious ways, punishing those who harbored and aided Jews, while rewarding those who killed them, but that would hardly be proof of the objectivity of his moral rules. Thus far we can only assume that God's rules are arbitrary.

Rebuttal 2: "You cannot prove God does not use Might Makes Right"
What I am saying, is that God can only acquire the ability to dictate moral laws through the MMR principle. It is the only moral framework which squares with the conception of God. Questions such as "Why can God determine moral rules?" and "Why are my rules subsidiary to God's?" can only be rationally answered by using the MMR framework. But again, as I stated in my opening statement, this system destroys any possibility of God being the determiner of objective morality.

Rebuttal 3: "Most People Coincide 'Moral Objectivity' With God"
I agree - about 84% of the population identifies with a religion. However, this proves nothing. The fact that a lot of people think that God is a source of objective morality does not prove it true. Similarly, if 99% of the population believed that we all have invisible unicorns in our skulls giving us orders, we would not accept this as proof of the unicorns' existence.

Rebuttal 4: "There is nothing else saying we must act against our instincts"
That topic is actually in heated debate right now. There are many other competing theories as to where we get our morality. One theory, proposed by Christopher Hitchens (and many others), suggests that morality is a biological mechanism intended to keep us from slaughtering each other and increase the chances of reproducing to the next generation. God as the moral arbitrator is not the only theory out there.

I summarize again by saying that all logic, reasoning, and evidence at this point shows that the concept of God as an objective moral arbitrator is demonstrably false, and cannot be adequately defended. Thank you.


Thank you for thoughts and views. I am at a good disadvantage with your compared information and abilities to debate. I do not have a rebuttal. Maybe someone else can provide a better argument. Thank you much for the experience. Maybe we can debate another day.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you, comasense, for debating. It has been a pleasure, and I hope to debate again some time. As a formality, I will note that Pro has conceded the debate. Thank you again, comasense, and thank you to anyone following this debate



comasense forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


BastiatForever forfeited this round.


comasense forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by BastiatForever 3 years ago
No worries. This is only my second debate.
Posted by comasense 3 years ago
I apologize if I did not follow your rules as set out. This is my first debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.