God can be proven to have the power to determine objective morality
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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.
- 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.
comasense forfeited this round.
BastiatForever forfeited this round.
comasense forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.