The Instigator
janetsanders733
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
SimpleObserverofThings
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

God must Exist for Objective Moral values to Exist

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 6 votes the winner is...
janetsanders733
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,787 times Debate No: 40046
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (6)

 

janetsanders733

Pro

I would like to debate you on Morality, and how you need God as an objective source for morality to exist. Here is how the debate will go. I would also like to thank Con for accepting this debate.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Argument's
Round 3: Rebuttal's/Conclusion
SimpleObserverofThings

Con

I accept, looking forward to your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
janetsanders733

Pro

[I] if God exists, then objective moral values and duties exist.

[II] Objective moral duties, and values exist.

[III] Therefore God exists.

1) If evolution is true, then we are nothing more than time+chance+matter+energy. If that is the case then where does the source of morality come from? Without God you cannot adequately explain why objective moral values exist, since you are the result of a biological process.

2) When you look around the world, you will see that Objective moral duties, and values do exist. For example: Murder, rape, torture, child abuse, cheating, lying, and stealing will always be objectively wrong no matter what country, culture, or society you are from. Deep down inside everyone knows that these things are evil; on the other hand for example: Love, compassion, kindness, forgiveness, justice, and things of that nature are always good no matter where you are from. Now before you call foul on me for thinking I am question begging the argument I raised is not question-begging, since the warrant I offer for belief in objective moral values and duties is not God but moral experience.

The problem with the atheist is that they cannot objectively explain why we are obligated to do for example good. If God does not exist then what motivates someone to do good? Or if Satan does not exist then what motivates someone to do evil? If God does exist then we have a sound foundation for our morality.

3) There is too much evil and suffering for God to exist? This is a typical argument put forth to try and disprove God as an objective source for morality. Take the problem of evil for example. Now whenever someone raises the question of evil it is either raised by (a) person or about person(s). If you assume there’s such a thing as good, then you’re assuming there’s such a thing as evil. If you assume there’s a such thing as good and evil, then you must assume there’s a moral law to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s a moral law, then you must assume there’s a moral law giver who gives us a moral conscious to know right and wrong. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. If there is no moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no such thing as good, if there’s no such thing as good then there is no such thing as evil. If there is no such thing as evil then what is your question?

The only way you can Philosophers and Scientists can argue morality is either subjective or pragmatic. They can tell you how to apply morals in society, but they can’t tell you why they exist, nor where they came from.

4) Based on premise one and two we have a sound grounding for our Morality, because God exists. If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo- sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed.

Sources:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

SimpleObserverofThings

Con

(1) Knowing whether or not a god(s) exists is irrelevant to our understanding of what morality is

(2) Using one avenue of beliefs to justify a certain view, while dismissing others especially when the view is contrary to human well-being, isn't a valid case to suggest a deity exists to whose morality we need to administer to

(3) Therefore god(s) isn't needed

(1) Our knowing of a supernatural being(s) exists or not is irrelevant to our understanding of what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Seeing that there is a plethora of religious ideologies, it is a biased claim to make that one out of the thousands, is the one to consider and help our understanding of morality. As our culture evolves, our understanding of the natural world, science and medicine, there are facts to which contribute to our understanding of human and animal well-being and how it helps determine what we consider good for us and not so good. We know its possible to live in a failed state with everything that can go wrong does go wrong, where a mother can't feed her children, where strangers cannot find the basis for peaceful collaboration, and people are murdered indiscriminately. We know of truths in where human communities can flourish versus those that cannot based on that community's current understanding of the natural world, science, and medicine. Now it may be of worry to the notion of well being where it is truly undefined and perpetually redefined to what is true morality so how can there be objective morality.

As one example, the concept of physical health has changed over the years and millennium, where back in early Greek times the life expectancy was round 30 but now because of better understanding of science and medicine our life expectancy is around 80. Our understanding of this well-being is a prime contributor to our understanding of what we as a society can decipher what is morally right and what is morally wrong because of the impact it can have toward our physical and mental well-being. We do not need to know if a deity exists in order to come to a conclusion of morality when scientific observation, trial & error, has contributed to our society immensely to know factually what is good or bad for our and animal well-being.

(2) To perpetuate one religious view point while ignoring all other religious view points, isn't a valid method to use to prove a supernatural being exists whose morality we must observe. There are cultures whose understanding of morality is essentially stunning the human progression of that community and their well-being. Let's take the example used by Sam Harris lecture regarding his book "The Moral Landscape". He mentioned an example in where he had a brief conversation with a colleague of his where he asked her regarding human well-being and other cultures understanding of morality where if a woman is raped, the next thing that happens is the father will kill her out of shame. His colleagues' reply was how can we determine that is morally wrong? Sam, shocked by her reply, asked her a different way, which I want to add to this debate: "If we were to find a culture where it was religiously customary and written in their holy text to be obeyed that they are to remove the eyes of every third child, in order to honor god in darkness, or whatever other nonsense, is that contributing to human progression and well-being?"

Many Christian apologists adhere to the bible as their source for understanding their deity's definitions of what is morally good and evil. This is a failed attempt to provide as evidence that we are to use the bible as our moral guide when in fact it alarmingly contradicts human progression and well-being. I will use one example and that is the slaughter of innocence. The bible is explicit in providing detailed accounts in where the god of the bible ordered, carried out, and/or approved genocide of the innocence. I will provide two examples: Noah's Flood and Killing of babies and pregnant women. Genesis chapters 5-6 give a story of how god felt regret creating mankind because they've become far beyond the ability of being rehabilitated. He is given no other choice but to completely wipe out humanity (animals included) and to start over. Who were among the ones killed by means of drowning? Everyone. Including babies who had no chance to understand or even get the chance to decide if they wanted to worship god. Animals all over the planet is killed off, for what reason? The bible isn't clear as to why but to accept that god, the supposed creator of the universe, isn't able to find another way to rehabilitate his creation, says volumes regarding his sense of right and wrong.

Hosea 13:16 states: "Samaria shall become desolate; for she has rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." In which context is this acceptable where it contributes to human progression and human well-being? This is among hundreds of things that are virtually repeated throughout the bible and that is just one religious ideology among others that have their own contradictions to human well-being.

(3) Seeing that our understanding of what helps human progression and contributes to human well-being by using science and logic, when compared to the ideologies of religious dogma, it plainly shows that religious dogma are not to be considered as key components that should be used to help strive for human progression and human well-being. History has shown that when using religious dogma to dictate what is morally right and what is morally wrong has been proven to stun human progression. Case in point, the era known as the dark ages, religion did in fact contribute to the people of that time to believe in diluted ideas that today are scientifically and medically incorrect and cannot be used for human well-being. As an example it was believed by the Roman Catholic church that the people weren't allowed to obtain a copy of the bible, that it was a good thing to be illiterate and let the priests teach the people what they feel they should know. This has lead many to believe in a lot of folklore, superstitions which has lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths, wide spread panic, disease, and stunned human progression as well as diminished human well-being. Examples like those plainly shows that we can not imply that using religious dogma and believing any deity (defined by any religion) exists and whose sense of morality we should adhere to.

Is there a view point that we can consider that will contribute to human progression and well-being? Yes there is and it stems from, not religious ideas, but rather scientific and evolutionary understandings. As a social species we have come up with the universal well-being rule known as the "golden rule" and there are cultures of antiquity that were untouched by Christian/Islamic/Judaism influence of the time that were able to come up with such a common universal rule on their own by basically understanding the facts that contribute to human well-being. Apologists would try to point that certain viewpoints, like Atheism, are just as dangerous, because of such times in history where they attribute atheism with such people like Stalin and Hitler.

This is a fallacy that is constantly used to prove atheism isn't a worldview to consider that it's a dangerous viewpoint, and people like Ray Comfort are habitually using this key argument when debating with atheists. I would like to invite my opponent to consider the following video (though it is simplified) which is a description of how poor the Hitler/Nazi analogies are, particularly those that one hears coming from the religious right.

Can we obtain morality that can benefit human progression and well-being without the help of some supernatural entity? Yes we can, with reason, evidence as well as scientific understandings and medical advancements, which contributes our better, factual, understanding to what is good toward human well-being.

Sources:
The Moral Landscape
Letter to a Christian Nation
god is not Great
Wikipedia
Youtube
King James Bible
Debate Round No. 2
janetsanders733

Pro

“(1)”

This is my response to paragraph 1 of Con’s argument.
I do not have enough room to copy his paragraphs. I have decided to just rather copy the number of he paragraphs and respond to them.

Con seems to misunderstand my argument that I put forward at the beginning of this debate.

I never said that we must “believe” in God or “know” him personally to know that objective moral values exist. I said that morality is based on personal experience. As I addressed previously in my opening statement, every human being knows things like: murder, rape torture, etc. are morally evil. And things like: Love, justice, mercy, kindness, and forgiveness. Regardless of what society, country, or culture you were raised in every human being around the world knows these things are right or wrong.

Another problem with Con’s argument is that he contributes well being to moral value. In other words, my opponent is not arguing about moral values, but rather what is beneficial to the flourishing of a society in which to live in. Of course science can help tell us what is “beneficial” to the flourishing of society. We can say the same thing about Corn. Corn for example, needs: water, sunlight, and constant nurture to help it “flourish.” But Corn in of itself has no moral value. We don’t say “Oh that poor corn.” “Oh how I felt so bad for this corn, why did it have to rot and die?” That would be silly. There is no possible world in which some entity A is not identical to A. So if there is any possible world in which A is not identical to B, it follows that A is not in fact identical to B. Since it's possible that human well-being and moral goodness are not identical, it follows necessarily that human well-being and moral goodness are not the same. I think Jerry Fodor a philosopher put it best when he said "Science is about facts, not norms; it might tell us how we are, but it wouldn't tell us what is wrong with how we are."17 In particular it cannot tell us that we have a moral obligation to take actions that are conducive to human flourishing.”

“ (2)

This is my response to paragraph 2 of Con’s argument.

I would like the record to show to the audience that argument (2) from Con is irrelevant to our debate topic. We are not debating “Which God is the one true God?” or “Which religion is right?” We are simply debating if God’s existence is necessary for objective moral values to exist. I am not forfeiting this argument, nor is this a cop-out. Now if Con would like to debate me on this issue, I would be glad to answer his objections, and address the bible passages he took out of context in another debate. I am simply just saying this is not relevant to our debate topic.

(3)

This is my response to paragraph 3 of Con’s argument.

Con still can’t answer the “value problem”. He attempts to redefine “good and bad” by using them in a non-moral sense. But the words “good and bad” are used in non-moral senses all the time. Take Football for example.

“Texas A&M has a good football team.”

“Johnny Manziel is a good quarterback.”

Or take bad for example

“This fruit smells bad.”

“This lighting is bad.”

Clearly these words good and bad used in the non-moral sense don’t prove that they are morally good or bad. I hope for example Texas A&M’s football team is morally and ethnically a good team, but I mean they are good based on how well they play. Or when I was talking about fruit for example, I don’t mean the fruit is morally evil. I mean that the fruit is bad based on its smell. Con still assumes that moral values and human well being is the same.

Is there a view point that we can consider that will contribute to human progression and well-being? Yes there is and it stems from, not religious ideas, but rather scientific and evolutionary understandings. As a social species we have come up with the universal well-being rule known as the "golden rule" and there are cultures of antiquity that were untouched by Christian/Islamic/Judaism influence of the time that were able to come up with such a common universal rule on their own by basically understanding the facts that contribute to human well-being. Apologists would try to point that certain viewpoints, like Atheism, are just as dangerous, because of such times in history where they attribute atheism with such people like Stalin and Hitler.

"This is a fallacy that is constantly used to prove atheism isn't a worldview to consider that it's a dangerous viewpoint, and people like Ray Comfort are habitually using this key argument when debating with atheists. I would like to invite my opponent to consider the following video (though it is simplified) which is a description of how poor the Hitler/Nazi analogies are, particularly those that one hears coming from the religious right."

Again I never said that we must “believe” in God or “know” him personally to know that objective moral values exist. I said that morality is based on personal experience. And plus the bible says the Law is written on everyone's heart. That means that everyone knows right and wrong.

Second, it is not a fallacy that Atheism can lead you to do what Hitler and Stalin did. If God does not exist, then you as a human being do not have a moral accountability. On the Atheist worldview, Hitler was doing was applying Social Darwinism to the Jews. Hitler said” I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of their conscience.” Stalin was a seminary Student in an Orthodox seminary, when he lost his faith in God. Look at this example by what Stalin said about a chicken.

“On one occasion, so it was narrated, Stalin called for a live chicken and proceeded to use it to make an unforgettable point before some of his henchmen. Forcefully clutching the chicken in one hand, with the other he began to systematically pluck out its feathers. As the chicken struggled in vain to escape, he continued with the painful denuding until the bird was completely stripped. “Now you watch,” Stalin said as he placed the chicken on the floor and walked away with some bread crumbs in his hand. Incredibly, the fear-crazed chicken hobbled toward him and clung to the legs of his trousers. Stalin threw a handful of grain to the bird, and it began to follow him around the room, he turned to his dumbfounded colleagues and said quietly, “This is the way to rule the people. Did you see how that chicken followed me for food, even though I had caused it such torture? People are like that chicken. If you inflict inordinate pain on them they will follow you for food the rest of their lives.”

May I ask on what moral basis or grounds is what Hitler or Stalin did right or wrong?

Can we obtain morality that can benefit human progression and well-being without the help of some supernatural entity? Yes we can, with reason, evidence as well as scientific understandings and medical advancements, which contributes our better, factual, understanding to what is good toward human well-being.

In Conclusion:

Con has failed to show the basis or moral foundation for objective moral values to exist. He has only argued how society can benefit from good and bad. It is just like Evolutionary biologist Michael Ruse said “, "The position of the modern evolutionist … is that humans have an awareness of morality … because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. … Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. … Nevertheless, … such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, … and any deeper meaning is illusory."
Only with a moral law giver can we make any claim to good and evil, since it is who he gives us a moral conscience to differientiate between good and evil. Any other claim would be subjective.

Sources:

http://www.mrdowling.com...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God, (Word Publ., Dallas: 1994), pp. 26-27

https://bible.org...

SimpleObserverofThings

Con

Pro has demonstrated based on what he wrote, that YES in fact we do need to believe in a "personal" deity(s) in order to understand good and bad (he reiterated this twice). He failed to demonstrate WHY this is needed, when I plainly provided information showing that as a SOCIETY we have based our morality on EXPERIENCE, to which my opponent mentioned " I said that morality is based on personal experience. As I addressed previously in my opening statement, every human being knows..."etc. Science has HELPED in our further understanding as to WHY such good or bad morals are to be considered in order that our society can PROGRESS and simply we can get along.

Well-being is simply summarizing the "golden rule" that my opponent likely believes and attributes it to his demi-god, Jesus. "Do unto others as you would like to have done to yourselves" is a universal basic social understanding that helps us make decisions that contributes to human well-being and makes for a good healthy society. I would like to address the Corn illustration that pro used and basically state that this is a poor attempt to dismiss human well-being. True Corn needs vital elements in order to grow into a healthy edible food, but we're not food (for some animals and cannibals we are). Science over the last 200 years has made strides on medical and social progress. They have made us understand that what we as a society would need to do in order to not live in a chaotic environment. This is what I mean and this example demonstrates how when a society ignores basic scientific understanding that contributes to human well-being, there are fatal consequences that will happen. An 8 year old Yemen girl is married off to a older man in a country that upholds religious ideology over factual scientific understanding of human well-being, which does contribute to understanding good vs bad morality. This young girl of 8 dies on her wedding night, but why? Because science has shown over the last 200 years that deflowering a young girl of that age is dangerous because her body isn't fully developed to handle such stress. Yet, this type of culture was supported and adhered to by the same people that are written in the bible. (address this in another debate)

(2) This is a common "dodge" attempt that even my opponent used here to not admit that he is basing his reasoning not on factual information but rather his religious ideology. He openly admitted twice that we do need to consider a "god" in order to understand morality and basically be held accountable toward this "deity". Pro said: " If God does not exist, then you as a human being do not have a moral accountability. "...."Only with a moral law giver can we make any claim to good and evil, since it is who he gives us a moral conscience to differentiate between good and evil". Again he failed to make us understand as to WHY we need to address a deity and WHO this deity might in fact be.

Since he doesn't want to address the example I've taken from his book of multiple choice, I will then point to factual historic examples. One such example of stunning human progression and scientific understanding, is the dark ages where the Catholic church suppressed knowledge from the masses and instead fed them superstitious ideas. This approach has led to them not understanding basic hygiene to which contributed to the black plague that nearly wiped everyone out. Also, since they believed in the power of God, priest would place their hands on the sick, which obviously didn't heal the individual and at the same time infected and killed the priest. In more recent memory, we had the pilgrims trying to create a society based on religious ideology which contributed to innocent women being put to death on false accusations namely being called witches. A silly concept taught in the Christian-Judeo supposed holy book. These are only two out of a wealth of examples from history that shows that if we are to place our understanding on religious ideology to help us make moral decisions, we can fail as a society for providing true good moral standards.

Lastly, pro stated " I said that morality is based on personal experience. And plus the bible says the Law is written on everyone's heart. That means that everyone knows right and wrong." Again he trying to point one opinion over a wealth of other religious opinions and doesn't demonstrate why this needs to be adhered to over others.

(3) The Stalin example that my opponent provided doesn't demonstrate atheism or true Dawrinism, and not to take up too much time, I will simply address a few points. In another debate I addressed this issue with Stalin and Hitler where I made mention simply that they were insane individuals but what made them worse was that they had power. There are people who suffer insanity who wouldn't care at all for human well-being, and most of these people are in hospitals for the mentally disturbed. If these individuals were born today, they would have been categorized as being mentally insane and thus placed in special care. Hitler for one admitted in several letters and speeches that he was in fact a bible believing Christian doing the work of God by ridding the world of Jews who he blames killed his savior. "Creationists have often maintained that social Darwinism - leading to policies designed to make the weak perish - is a logical consequence of "Darwinism" (the theory of natural selection in biology). Biologists and historians have stated that this is a naturalistic fallacy, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society."

Stalin was a Marxist with his own slant on the philosophy, a slant he used to justify the killing of millions of Russians. "While it is certainly arguable that communism would be untenable in a theistic climate - making atheism necessary for communism - the apologetic fails because atheism isn't sufficient for communism; fires only start in the presence of oxygen, but no fire has ever said to have been caused by the presence of oxygen. Indeed, (weak) atheism can't be considered sufficient for any action." "Furthermore, there is the concurrent claim that the USSR was an atheist nation. While the Communist Party suppressed religious fervor, it did so only out of jealously of loyalties. The Communist Party demanded loyalty to itself above all others, even above God. Russia has always been an intensely religious nation. They consider the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be equal to the Vatican's Pope; or even above the Pope. To claim that Russia became atheistic overnight in 1917 only to emerge deeply religious in 1989 is incredibly ignorant." Stalin's history is not clearly known seeing that he suppressed information about himself and there are very few documents that have survived that provide some insight to his life. Little is known about Stalin's life until the age of 44 when he became the head of the Communist Party.

In conclusion, we are accountable to ourselves and in the society that we live in. As a society, based on experience and science, we understand so far what is morally acceptable and what is not morally acceptable in order to contribute to human well-being. Well-being is the foundation as to what we as a society decide what is morally good and morally bad. Scientific studies and medical advancements has made it possible for us to make rational decisions that helps our progress become a better, fruitful, coherent, and respectable society.

Sources:
Wikipedia
Iron Chariots
Rational Wiki
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Maybe in a week. I already have multiple debates going on right now.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Debate me on The Moral Argument Janet...
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
"God's nature is independent it is not dependent on something else. Therefore since his nature is good, then his commands are good." - How do you know this to be true? What evidence is there to suggest that he exists (1) and (2) that his/her/it is good?

(1) God is, by definition, a maximally great being.
- Which God? And how is he a great being?

(2) This entails His being metaphysically necessary and morally perfect.
- How is this determined?

(3) Therefore, by (2), God exists in all possible worlds.
- Demonstrate this to be true.

"On what basis must we "get along", what moral obligation do you have to fulfill if God does not exist. Who cares? Do what you want. You're not accountable to anybody." - For one I personally care because I know the person next to me shares those morals the percentage of me continuing to exist is higher. I'm accountable to the person next to me and myself. If I desire our species to exist, then I must find ways to help make that happen. As a society we've done so by trial and error to determine what best fits our morality and helps our society to flourish.

"If you see someone for example getting mugged, you're not "morally obligated" to help that person, it is just a biological process taking place, determinism is taking its course on that person." - I personally care because I wouldn't want that to happen to me and I would likely want the same help too. With that type of mindset people can get along. What can science tell us what benefits would there be to care for our neighbor? Well, people's psychological behavior improves, without fear of being killed we can place our concentration on other things that can help the next person and ourselves etc. Society thus can progress by continuing to strive for human well-being.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
You avoided the "value problem", by redefining the words "good and evil" in non-moral terms. In my debate I pointed out that we use good and bad all the times in a non moral sense. For example. Water is good, Soda is bad.

I don't mean that water is morally good, or that soda is morally bad. I mean that water taste "good and is good for you, and that soda is "bad" for your health.

If God exists, that means he is independent so he can exist in all worlds. You keep thinking that God is contingent. God's nature is independent it is not dependent on something else. Therefore since his nature is good, then his commands are good. Don't confuse Moral semantics with moral ontology. This means that his standard of right and wrong is not dependent on you and I. This makes him Objective since he does not depend on something, which means his moral standard of good and evil is objective. Thus we can conclude that objective moral values and duties are "objective" because they are based on his standard.

On what basis must we "get along", what moral obligation do you have to fulfill if God does not exist. Who cares? Do what you want. You're not accountable to anybody. Live life the way you see fit. When you assume a moral obligation, then you are assuming a causation. If death is the end of all things then why does it matter? Evolution has no ultimate purpose; it reaches no goal.

If you see someone for example getting mugged, you're not "morally obligated" to help that person, it is just a biological process taking place, determinism is taking its course on that person.

But if God exists then there is a reason to help that person, because they have "moral value", not just well being. If there is a moral law, then there must be a moral law giver, but that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
@ janetsanders733:

That the standard is dependent on him most certainly does NOT make it objective. My standards are dependent on me--does that make them objective? Clearly not.
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
To have a purpose in this universe is basically what you're debating about?! Then I'm sorry to say, we don't. But we do individually have meaning either to ourselves or to those close to us, but in about 5-6 billion years from now, all that won't matter. So much for purpose.

(1) God is, by definition, a maximally great being.
- Which God? And how is he a great being?

(2) This entails His being metaphysically necessary and morally perfect.
- How is this determined?

(3) Therefore, by (2), God exists in all possible worlds.
- Demonstrate this to be true.

Again our value stems from continuing our existence and basically getting along, not sure how hard this is. You want to believe we have a purpose in the cosmos that we live in, but there isn't any evidence to suggest that we do, but on the contrary we have sufficient evidence that this earth even this galaxy will be nothing billions of years from now, so what purpose does that serve, where do we fit in the scheme of things when the galaxy Andromeda will collide with the Milky Way and our sun will morph into a Red Sun swallowing our earth, where all of our dead ancestors are?
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
(1) God is, by definition, a maximally great being.
(2) This entails His being metaphysically necessary and morally perfect.
(3) Therefore, by (2), God exists in all possible worlds.

So, by (1), (3) & (4), it follows that God has the same moral
character in every possible world.
(6) Therefore God"s nature is good neither because of the way He
happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external
standard of goodness.

moral values are not contingent, but hold in every possible world. Then God will ground these values in every possible world.

"You said experience, so why involve a god if you and I already agree that because of experience alone we as a species have filtered out our sense of morality."

I am asking on what basis do they exist, or where do they come from. What is the moral foundation of their existence.
On a naturalistic view, moral values are just the behavioral by-products of biological evolution and social conditioning. Just as a troupe of baboons exhibit co-operative and even self-sacrificial behavior because natural selection has determined it to be advantageous in the struggle for survival, so homo sapiens " their primate cousins " exhibit similar behavior for the same reason. As a result of sociobiological pressures there has evolved among homo sapiens a sort of "herd morality" that functions well in the perpetuation of our species. But on the atheistic view there does not seem to be anything that makes this morality objectively true.

Sure we can both agree that we don't like getting punched in the face, but science does not explain why it is morally good or morally evil to do it? You are just listing conditions that help a society flourish. You are not telling me on what basis do I have moral value. If God does not exist, then you and I are no more valuable than dirt or rocks its simple as that.
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
The title of your Debate says God, not the following: Gods, a god, the god, goddesses, it specifically says God. Again define who this thing is and why you believe that morality needs to be derived from this being. Answer one then the other. (which you never did)

You said experience, so why involve a god if you and I already agree that because of experience alone we as a species have filtered out our sense of morality.

Human flourishing is part of morality, in that society can only progress for the better of humanity when we understand as to why. Science helped in this regard because as my example I provided regarding the dark ages, the Salem witch trials, and more recent Yemen 8 year old girl, SCIENCE has helped our understanding of what we as a society should decide on in order to flourish and simply get along. We sentient beings, social animals, highly evolved, we've come with such a construct on our own. History plainly shows that as we begin to discover new things about ourselves, the natural world, we begin to apply such discoveries to our concept of morality.

"now listen closely is on what basis do objective moral values exist?" - hope you can hear me: For our survival. That simple.

You and I right now can agree that we don't like getting punched in the face. Why? Because for one it hurts and two physical damages can occur, to which science helps understand these causes. We also understand the value of not punching someone in the face because it helps create a more peaceful environment, it prevents fractured hands, and faces. The moral VALUE behind this: don't punch someone in the face, no fractured bones will happen, and peace will reign.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
the topic of the debate is not which "deity does morals come from", that was irrelevant to the debate. Whether the topic of the debate is morality natural or supernatural. You keep confusing Moral semantics with moral ontology. I am not asking for the basis of the meaning good and evil. I am asking for the basis of moral value.

You're assuming that you must believe in God to know right and wrong. That is not what I said in my argument. In my argument I said that we know morality is objective because of personal experience.
The problem I raised, now listen closely is on what basis do objective moral values exist?
You could not answer the basis for objective moral values and duties.

Human flourishing has nothing to do with moral value. Can Science tell us what kind of environment human beings can thrive in best? Of course. But I mean Science can say the same thing about bacteria, or corn, or animals. But just because Science can tell us what is beneficial, does not mean we have moral value. Science can tell us the is, not what ought to be.
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
This entire time (after reading all the comments) you still haven't defined who this deity is and why we should consider what this thing says. Neither have you demonstrated examples in where this deity's morality works in the real world and that we should adhere to them. My debate with you was simple, I provided an alternative that didn't involve a deity and provided past examples in where societies used that book of multiple choice and failed miserably. There are current examples of secular countries that don't follow your view of morality based on a dictatorial being in the sky and are doing quite well. Yet, countries that try to uphold your view on morality (USA) are the ones that have the highest crime rate, despite those countries being one of the most religiously inclined.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Greematthew 3 years ago
Greematthew
janetsanders733SimpleObserverofThingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 felt that this was a very closely tied debate, but con seemed to stray sometimes, so I must give argument won to pro. Excellent topic and it is always fun to talk about.
Vote Placed by Inspired 3 years ago
Inspired
janetsanders733SimpleObserverofThingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a good case for objective moral issues. Con seemed to give more opinion rather than fact. This is obviously a topic both Pro and Con care greatly about.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
janetsanders733SimpleObserverofThingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Good Debate, I think Pro had the advantage in arguments, but the difference was negligible. Pro also had better sources, and actually linked to them.
Vote Placed by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
janetsanders733SimpleObserverofThingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro did not prove his statement "God must exist for moral values to exist", this was his burden. In fact he did not prove premise one in particular. I think it would have been good for the debate if the concept of "Objective" would have been more precisely defined in accordance with morality . The Con rebutted the Pro's arguments and made more convincing arguments for objective morality through the process of not requiring a deity. Spelling and Grammar goes to Con because in the first round the Pro wrote a improper sentence in point three in the second to last sentence.
Vote Placed by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
janetsanders733SimpleObserverofThingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied, because both parties were respectful. S&G was tied as well - both sides were able to make use of the English language. Arguments was a toughie - there seemed to be confusion as to what the premise of the debate was, but it seems that Con spent most of his arguments saying that you don't have to believe in a G-d to have moral objectives, while Pro states in the opening round that G-d is the source for morality not necessarily that one must believe in Him. I could still believe in gravity even if I think there was a conspiracy and Sir Isaac Newton never really existed. As such, points go to Pro for arguments. Though, as I said, it was a difficult category. Sources go to Pro because he gives verifiable sources whereas Con gives names of books and generalized websites like 'Wikipedia' and 'Youtube'. I happen to have read 'The moral Landscape', but not necessarily everyone has. It would also help in citing books to write page numbers and chapters like Pro did. That's it.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
janetsanders733SimpleObserverofThingsTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.