The Instigator
KILLUMINATI
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

If God does not exist can anything be morally wrong?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,725 times Debate No: 22545
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

KILLUMINATI

Con

If God does not exist can anything be morally wrong?

Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. It is the determination of what should be done and what should not be done. Morals deal with behaviors as well as motives. There is a great deal of discussion on what is the source or morals and whether or not they are objective. Biblically, morals are derived from God's character and revealed to us through the Scriptures.(1)

According to this view our moral duties are constituted by the commands of an essentially just and loving God. It seems to me that this theory does derive an ought from an is, and justifiably so though not in the way you imagine. The theory grounds moral values in God's unchanging nature. God is goodness. But that is not to say that because God is a certain way we ought to behave in certain ways. No, our moral obligations and prohibitions arise as a result of Gods commands to us. Gods nature serves to establish values good and bad while Gods commands establish moral duties what we ought or ought not to do.(2)

Bishop Desmond Tutu was recently interviewed by Bill Myers in a TV documentary on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which has been a focal process for enabling the people of South Africa to make peace with the injustices of the past. Describing the purpose of the TRC as he reflected on the perpetrators from both sides of the apartheid struggle, he said:

We're not seeking to humiliate them, we're not even seeking to prosecute them. We're just saying that this is a moral universe, and you've got to take account of the fact that truth and lies and goodness and evil are things that matter, and we've got to acknowledge them.

Without morality, there is no basis for reconciliation, and without God, there is no basis for morality. Tutu can speak with conviction on such issues because he believes not only in God, but in a God who is both loving and just.(3)

So what this means is:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore God must exist
4. And since God does exist we know what is morally wrong or right

(1)http://carm.org...
(2)http://carm.org...
(3)http://www.christianity.co.nz...
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Thanks for making this debate, KILLUMINATI. My two favorite issues to debate are God and morality, so this is just perfect.

First, I will disprove your argument, and then I will provide my own framework for objective morality.

My Opponent's Grounding for Objective Morality (God)

It seems so simple, so easy, and even so intuitive, to take the term "God" and fill all of our gaps in current knowledge with it. There's a small unknown in cosmogenesis? Fill it with God. There's a "gap" in the fossil record? Must be God. Nobody yet knows what the grounding for morality is? God.

However, I think you'll soon find it pretty clear that trying to fit "God" in morality is like trying to fit a square peg in a circular hole. So let's find out where my opponent's flaws lie and shave those edges off.

First and foremost, my opponent's argument is incredibly question-begging. (What? It can't be! William Lane Craig himself told me it was sound, and he's never wrong!) Let's take a closer look at it...

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

This provides us with the exact framework of what exactly my opponent thinks "objective moral values and duties" are. He thinks they are commands given to us by God. Well, fair enough. Obviously, if God does not exist, then God's commands cannot exist either.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Oh, really...? But this entire argument is supposed to be proving the existence of God (3. Therefore, God must exist.)... How can you possibly assert that "moral values and duties do exist" when by those you mean "God's commands"? You haven't proven God exists yet!

As you can see, premise 2 clearly assumes the truth of the conclusion before the conclusion can be logically deduced. The argument might as well read like this:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist, because they're foundation is in God.
3./4. Therefore, God must exist and is the foundation for objective moral values and duties.

Thanks for taking us around in circles, Con, but now I think I need a minute for the room to stop spinning before I continue.

...Okay. Let's move on.

My Grounding for Objective Morality (Survival and Flourishing)

It seems that many people, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, at least believe the first premise of my opponent's argument to be true. I, however, (and much to the chagrin of other non-believers) assert that moral values and duties are objective, despite any absence of deities.

Indeed, objective moral values and duties can exist without the aid of Jesus just as the ocean's waves can exist without the aid of Poseidon.

Let us look again at the definition of morality given by my opponent: "the distinction between right and wrong".

The two most conversional words in this definition are, of course, "right" and "wrong". How can we justifiably say which actions constitute "right" behavior and which actions constitute "wrong" behavior, without appearing to be merely projecting our own bias onto the problem?

Before we can even answer that, we must first ask ourselves something even more fundamental. It is understood that morality is that which governs what we consider to be right and wrong actions, but right and wrong for what or for whom? The answer is, of course, for us. For our own well-beings, for the well-beings of our fellow people, and for the well-beings of other conscious creatures (living things which, like us, can feel happiness and pain and other sensations of the sort).

Therefore, "good" actions are those which promote an overall "good" well-being of conscious creatures, and "bad" actions are those which promote an overall "bad" well-being of conscious creatures.

For example, drinking water and eating healthy is objectively good for our overall well-beings (it promotes survival and flourishing), so it is morally right to provide these essentials to those who do not have them (the homeless, the poor, the starving).

And these values and duties are indeed objective (true independent of human opinion). For another example, teaching the next generation of children how to read is objectively beneficial to our species' survival and flourishing, no matter how many people think they should all be illiterate.

Whose Morality has the better foundation? (God or logic)

In addition to the unsoundness of my opponent's arguments, asserting morality is nothing more than the commands of a totalitarian authority only worsens the questions of human ethics. Consider the Euthyphro dilemma: "Is the good good because God commands it, or does God command it because it's good?" [1]

Of course, if the latter is true, then things can be good without God (he is just the messenger). So my opponent must believe the former is true; but that's even worse! Then God can command anything at all and it would suddenly become morally righteous (like, for example, the slaughtering of your own son [2]).

No, in fact, this couldn't be further from the truth. This approach throws our species' well-being out the window in favor of subservience to a higher authority, no matter how harmful the higher authority's commands are to us and our fellow people.

It is only through a materialistic and logical mindset can we determine how we ought to and ought not act to each other.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Genesis 22
Debate Round No. 1
KILLUMINATI

Con

Thx for accepting

*Objective morality:

my opponent has said :"Oh, really...? But this entire argument is supposed to be proving the existence of God (3. Therefore, God must exist.)... How can you possibly assert that "moral values and duties do exist" when by those you mean "God's commands"? You haven't proven God exists yet!"

Unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.

The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of seeking God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore the proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.

The proof does not say that atheist do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything. This type of logical proof deals with transcendentals or necessary starting points and the proof is called a transcendental proof. Any contrary view to the God of Christianity being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume God in order to argue against Him. Only the Christian worldview can logically support rationality. You can only argue against Gods existence because God does exist.

**Grounding for Objective Morality: Survival and Flourishing

My opponent has said "My Grounding for Objective Morality" if it is his grounding than it is subjective simply because it is "his" grounding.

Humans do not have to find out what is moral by reading the Bible such knowledge is available to all people. Romans 2:14-15 says that those without God's special revelation can know right from wrong. They have God's general revelation of his basic moral law in their conscience. They're constituted to function properly when they live according to God's design. So people including atheists whose hearts have not been hardened or self deceived will have the same sorts of moral instincts as Christians that torturing babies for fun (along with rape or adultery) is wrong, and kindness is good.

My opponent said "Therefore, "good" actions are those which promote an overall "good" well-being of conscious creatures, and "bad" actions are those which promote an overall "bad" well-being of conscious creatures."

This is a form of utilitarianism which is flawed. There are cases when a minor individual suffer significant loss while the majority gain happiness from it.

For example, A just lost his arm in car accident and needs an arm. B just got heart disease and needs transplant. C got heavy burns from explosion in war and needs skin transplant. D got kidney failure in both of his kidney and needs transplant. E got his cornea peeled off and needs a new one. F is a completely healthy. Let's say advanced medication allows all these transplant happen.

In utilitarianism what is the best way to make the larger number happy? 1 person suffering or 5 people suffering. Which is better? in Utilitarianism, will take 1 person suffering and the 5 people happy. The answer is kill F and transplant all the organs the other people need to them. F suffers great loss. Is this moral or acceptable?

***Whose Morality has the better foundation? (God or logic)

What is good? Let us define good.

The way Abraham responded when he first learned of God's intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah gives us the answer:

Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly? (Genesis 18:25)

How did Abraham know justice required that God not treat the wicked and the righteous alike? Since no commandments had been handed down. Abraham knew goodness not by prior definition or by some decree of God but through moral intuition. He didn't need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in. Atheist understands what moral terms mean. He doesn't need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes.

This is my moral argument for God's existence. The awareness of morality leads to God much as the awareness of falling apples leads to gravity. Our moral intuitions recognize the effect but what is the adequate cause? If God does not exist then moral terms are actually incoherent and our moral intuitions are nonsense. When Euthyphro's dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the Biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead ethics are grounded in His character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God's immutable nature.

No outside definition of piety is necessary because morality is known directly through the faculty of moral intuition. God's laws express His character and if our moral intuitions are intact we immediately recognize those Laws as good.

God shows how we ought to and ought not act to each other...........

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
http://www.4truth.net...
http://www.apologetics.net...
DakotaKrafick

Pro

I was looking forward to a fruitful debate, not a Sunday mass parroting. Oh well...

My Opponent's Argument

"The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him."

If God's existence is so obvious that it doesn't require any proof (which doesn't even make sense), why did you try to offer a logical argument for God's existence?

"The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore the proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything."

And yet, you haven't proven that. At no point in your rant did you even allude to my objection of your logical argument. It, along with all other forms of TAG, is circular.

1. If objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists. (because objective moral values and duties are God's commands)
2. Objective moral values and duties exist. (wait, what? God's commands exist?)
3. Therefore, God exists. (duh, of course he does; how could God's commands exist without God?)

You might want to address the above objection, KILLUMINATI. You say God is the source of all logic, but you're being quite illogical in saying this.

Let me clarify something: I agree with the second premise. I agree that objective moral values and duties exist, but not under the framework provided by the first premise. The first premise sets up a kind of morality that can only be argued if God exists (his nature/commands), rendering the so-called morality as objectionable as the existence of God and the argument itself circular.

My Argument

"My opponent has said "My Grounding for Objective Morality" if it is his grounding than it is subjective simply because it is "his" grounding."

Sigh... no. I also said "My Opponent's Grounding for Objective Morality". That doesn't mean it's automatically subjective. It's just our respective arguments for objective morality.

"Humans do not have to find out what is moral by reading the Bible such knowledge is available to all people. Romans 2:14-15 says that those without God's special revelation can know right from wrong."

Sounds more like a concession than an objection, so I'll leave it at that.

Other than the above, my opponent offers a single old and worn-out thought experiment against my position of morality. Basically, if we have five dying people who can benefit from the organs of one healthy person, is it morally right to kill that one person and harvest his organs to save the five? After all, you will surely be increasing the net happiness among the six people. (This is, of course, assuming the healthy person would not otherwise volunteer for this.)

The answer is no for a couple of reasons, primarily because you would actually be decreasing the overall happiness of your fellow people by subjecting them to a world where this kind of treason and murder is acceptable.

Whose Morality as the better foundation? (God or logic)

"Abraham knew goodness not by prior definition or by some decree of God but through moral intuition. He didn't need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in. Atheist understands what moral terms mean."

Concession, concession, concession...

"He doesn't need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes."

Unsubstantiated. I have shown we can make sense of morality purely through logic.
Debate Round No. 2
KILLUMINATI

Con

My opponents opening statement "I was looking forward to a fruitful debate, not a Sunday mass parroting. Oh well"
How is this even relevant to this debate? This tactic has no place in proper debates. The fallacy statement (ad hominem attack) can lead to complete abandoning of the issues altogether.The character or actions of a person cannot be put to bear on an argument. Many ad hominem attacks APPEAR fine or well stated.

**"If God's existence is so obvious that it doesn't require any proof (which doesn't even make sense), why did you try to offer a logical argument for God's existence?"

I have not yet seen any "proof" offered by an atheist that contradicts the Bible. There may be something out there that does, but I have not yet seen it. The Bible shows how God's existence is so obvious that it doesn't require any proof. Since atheism is the position of "no God" either in belief or "lack of belief," and since there is no proof that God does not exist, then faith must make up the difference. As a Christian, my belief in God rests on evidence, experience, and decision. I see the biblical evidence, experience the work of God in my life, and I have chosen to continue in belief based upon these factors. What I lack in absolute proof, I complete in faith.

***"And yet, you haven't proven that. At no point in your rant did you even allude to my objection of your logical argument. It, along with all other forms of TAG, is circular."
(once again My "rant"?This is not relevant in this debate)

My opponent has not studied logic much because if he had studied he would know that he is using a fallacy. In fact this particular fallacy is one of the first things they teach you not to use in a philosophy or logic class.

Deductive Fallacy:
Premise 1: If Portland is the capital of Maine, then it is in Maine.
Premise 2: Portland is in Maine.
Conclusion: Portland is the capital of Maine.
(Portland is in Maine, but Augusta is the capital. Portland is the largest city in Maine, though.)

There I have debunked his "LOGICAL" argument.

***His argument:
First round my opponents opening statement: "First, I will disprove your argument, and then I will provide my own framework for objective morality."

"my own framework for objective morality"? Clearly subjective

"My opponent stated "Other than the above, my opponent offers a single old and worn-out thought experiment against my position of morality"
(once again his opinion"old and worn out thought experiment" how is this relevant in this debate)

This way of thinking will harm the "little man" so upper class society will be happy....

*****Whose Morality has the better foundation?

My statement: "Abraham knew goodness not by prior definition or by some decree of God but through moral intuition. He didn't need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in. Atheist understands what moral terms mean."

My opponent says "Concession, concession, concession" he clearly has no answer so we are left these three words.

My statement:"He doesn't need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes."

My opponent says "Unsubstantiated. I have shown we can make sense of morality purely through logic."
Has he? In what way?

*****Logic with God clearly has a better foundation:

First of all, the Bible gives a sufficient explanation as to the origins of morality in human life. It is surely a striking thing that out of a universe composed of atoms and molecules there should arise personal, rational, and moral creatures such as men are. What can account for this extraordinary fact? According to naturalism, personality, rationality, and morality have all arisen by chance out of impersonal, nonrational, and amoral being. The evolutionary stream appears to have risen much higher, qualitatively speaking, than its source. But any such theory falls far short of full rationality. A cause does not produce an effect which contains in itself qualities altogether lacking in the cause. If the world contains personal, rational, and moral creatures, as it does, it can only be because the cause of the world is personal, rational, and moral.

Second, the Christian belief in God lays solid foundations for morality. The British language philosopher Stephen Toulmin has written a book which explores the principles which are implicit in our reasoning as moral agents. In the course of his analysis, Toulmin uncovered a fundamental commitment which, though generally unquestioned and even unrecognized, points beyond morality to something deeper. That commitment amounts to a profound confidence in the final worth of human life. If the confidence were not there, we would lack all motivation to keep faith and act responsibly toward others. Moral actions are existentially possible only because their roots reach down into an underlying confidence in the abiding worth of our lives. But how is such a prereflexive confidence to be accounted for, and on what basis does it securely rest? Certainly, naturalism cannot explain it, or supply any adequate foundation for it. If man is the chance product of an impersonal order, the final worth of his life is drastically undermined, and consequently the foundation of morality is threatened. Friedrich Nietzsche was perceptive when he saw that the death of God would bring about a transvaluation of values. Once man's confidence in the worth of human life is cut away, the basis of the entire ethical enterprise is shaken. Only belief in God can provide the sound basis in reality for that confidence in the final worth of human life which ethics presupposes.

Finally, the Christian faith assures us that morality will attain its final end. Morality may be man's finest endeavor, but it is not difficult to see that it can never be fulfilled in this life. In earthly life there are degrees of goodness that are never attained, and acts of wickedness that are never requited. If this life is the only sphere of moral experience we will know, then the world is a madhouse. The lower forms of life may attain their temporal ends, but man whose moral fulfillment requires divine justice and immortality is denied his nisus of fulfillment. The moral dimension is fated to be frustrated unless it can see fulfillment beyond the mundane realm. The Christian world view and eschatology supply precisely that understanding of reality in which morality will attain its proper ends.

It is my belief that naturalistic ethics can provide neither an exhaustive or satisfying account of all that is involved in moral experience. The more we reflect carefully upon this phenomenon the more we are drawn toward belief in God as the rational and intelligible goal of the moral pilgrimage. Moral experience, like human experience as a whole, is left puzzling and unclear unless rational belief in God is finally adopted.

I am not maintaining, let it be noted, that the moral law possesses no power in men's lives apart from a religious sanction. What we do maintain is that only religious belief renders the existence of the moral dimension understandable. It alone can explain what transpires in that area of human experience. Apart from belief in God, the moral order is an impenetrable mystery.

The Christian faith supplies a superb basis for a truly ethical concern for other people. By all means let us dedicate ourselves to the good of all mankind. But let us do it within the framework which truly sustains so noble a commitment.

Thx for taking time to read my arguments which show clearly that without God morals have no meaning...........
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Ad Hominem

I'm sick of people accusing me of this. Perhaps my jocular and competitive demeanor comes off as a bit arrogant or aggressive sometimes, but c'mon. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, not an error in ethics. Ad Hominem is committed when one formulates a rebuttal such as "Your argument resembled boring, Sunday school codswallop; therefore, it is wrong" (non-sequitor). It is not committed when one formulates a rebuttal such as "Your argument resembled boring, Sunday school codswallop, and it's wrong because [...]" (true on all accounts).

Ad Hominems are necessarily also insults, but insults are not necessarily Ad Hominems. Whether you perceived my statements as insulting is irrelevant to my arguments; I have committed no fallacies.

(By the way, I like how you later say I must not have studied logic much, which is ironic on multiple accounts. I seem to know a lot more about this than you...)

My Opponent's Argument

"The Bible shows how God's existence is so obvious that it doesn't require any proof."

1. You have yet to show how God's existence is "so obvious". Shallowly alluding to something that does isn't enough for this debate.
2. So the Bible proves how God's existence is so obvious that it doesn't require the Bible to prove it? Yeah, that makes sense.
3. Nothing is "so obvious that it doesn't require any proof". Nothing. All beliefs necessarily requires evidence to be justified.

In response to my assertion that his argument is question-begging, he says I have committed a fallacy in deductive reasoning (one apparently similar to asserting Portland must be the capital of Maine, since it's located in Maine). I honestly have no idea what he's talking about, though. It was a good, classic example of a deductive error, but he fails to show how it applied at all in defense of his argument's circular nature.

One more time...

You assert that objective moral values and duties can only exist if God exists, too. This is because objective moral values and duties are grounded in God's nature and given to us by God's commands. Then you assert that objective moral values and duties do exist; in other words, you assert that God's nature and commands exist. Then you say "Therefore, God must exist and is the foundation of objective morality". If you don't see how this is question-begging, then perhaps you should retake your precious philosophy course.

My opponent's argument is circular and has not been proven otherwise.

My Argument

""my own framework for objective morality"? Clearly subjective"

Once again... it was a way to have the audience understand the following argument was my own, not yours.

"This way of thinking will harm the "little man" so upper class society will be happy...."

That was the one and only sentence my opponent provided in response to the moral thought experiment. Needless to say, I don't even see how this is relevant. Euthanizing a healthy person to save five unhealthy people will "harm the little man so upper class society will be happy"? What are you talking about? The economic classes of our hypothetical people were never addressed.

Extend my argument that it would only decrease the overall well-being of society by subjective citizens to a world where it's acceptable and commonplace to be euthanized against your will for the sake of saving strangers' lives.

Who has the better moral foundation? (God or logic)

"A cause does not produce an effect which contains in itself qualities altogether lacking in the cause." [ie, a process lacking intelligence–evolution–creating intelligent creatures]

How could anyone possibly postulate such an assertion? Milk, eggs, flour, etc. make a fluffy cake, even though nothing in the original cause contained the quality "fluffy". Sperm cells and egg cells unite to create human zygotes, even though neither sperm cells nor egg cells are fully "human" (they each lack 23 pairs of chromosomes). Car accidents sometimes result in death, even though the things that caused them (human beings) were not dead prior to impact.

In fact, if you think about it, pretty much every single effect in the universe contains qualities unique to their respective causes.

"The moral dimension is fated to be frustrated unless it can see fulfillment beyond the mundane realm."

By this my opponent means bad people don't suffer consequences in the afterlife and good people don't reap benefits. Unfortunately, this is just an appeal to emotion. It's true; the universe itself does not care what happens to whom. Hitler is dead and is not burning eternally for his actions in life. Does this mean there must then necessarily be an afterlife for punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous? Of course not. It only means you might wish there was such a thing. However, our desires do not shape reality.

That being said, any lack of an afterlife does not undermine the moral values and duties that exist in this life. Our actions can and will effect each other and our species as a whole, either for better or for worse. Teaching our children to read is morally right, despite how many people think they should be illiterate. Feeding the hungry is morally right, despite how many people think they should starve. Throwing murderers behind bars is morally right, despite how many people think they should continue killing others.

Ultimately, the issues of morality are necessarily those to be resolved by logic, not God.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
typo in my vote comment, I mean to say I demonstrate*, my bad.
Posted by stubs 5 years ago
stubs
This debate got very off topic and neither side was convincing
Posted by sw121290 5 years ago
sw121290
i don't understand.... what are you arguing?

if what you're arguing is:
1) objective morality exists only if god exists
2) objective morality exists
Therefore: therefore god exists

you might as well just delete this post. your argument assumes premise 2 is true; which is unprovable btw. For example, killing is bad. I say killing is good; therefore morality is relative, not objective. Only way to prove morality is objective is to prove a god exists and that god has set an objective morality, but proving a god is real (not probable) is impossible. I am a Christian who debate the existence of God, and I'm telling you, the best we can do is prove God is probable.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Questions aren't resolutions.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
I really wanna run skepticism on this....
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
KILLUMINATIDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets points for better arguments. Pro gets conduct and sources for Con's plagiarism and personal attack: "The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of seeking God, or not believing in God are unavailable."
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
KILLUMINATIDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro flowed better, demonstrated that objective morality does NOT exist as morality pertains to the measurement of value, and the measurement of value is ALWAYS subjective
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
KILLUMINATIDakotaKrafickTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented no logical argument in favor of his position, but rather sermonized and relied on circular reasoning throughout. Pro, tempted by the low hanging fruit, spent almost his entire case attacking Con's poorly structured arguments and thus left almost no room for a case of his own. Simply stating that moral objectivity is based on logic does not meet his burden, especially considering the vagueness of his opening presentation. Neither side was convincing; arguments are tied.