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

Is A God Required For Moral Standards?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 331 times Debate No: 90823
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




A God Is Not Required For Morale Standards:

Argument Consists of Three Main Reasons

1. Humans naturally adapt the need for morales as a relative result of our understanding of what is beneficial and what is non-beneficial.

2. Laws are directly caused by humans having the ability to set standards of morales. Humans experience empathy, and sympathy as it is advantageous for our survival.

3. Altruism has evolutionary success among groups of species, most of which are in the family of Mammals. Mothers naturally nurture their young and take care the of sick as an advantageous trait of that sex in the species. Wild animals have been observed to demonstrate altruism and care. These creatures do not have the capacity to perceive a God. Morales are advantageous for homo sapiens survival, as to all species of Animalia.



The Instigator,

Restatement of Argument, (Please Correct):

1. & 3. - Adapation: Humanity has necessarily, (naturally), and evidently, adapted the "Need" for Moralilty.
2. - Morality and Law: Sympathy, (consequent of Empathy) has driven development of human morality and thereby just laws;


1. Certainly, God has been portrayed as dwelling in "The Transcendent" - even outside our own causal domain. And so, God is described as "Spirit", and not flesh - specifically, the conscious "Spirit of Love".

2. Humanity embraces morality - that which is just. And, we define what is just, as: "that which is equal". And, we discern what is equal, through: "that which is wise" - (in the context of time).

3. Plausibly, computational "morality" could be derived given enough data. But this form of morality can not bring "abundant, life-giving, life".

4. For this reason - if morality is driven by a "Transcendent Love", (God) - if we percieve love greater than our own - we can find paradigms to evolve beyond ourselves.
Debate Round No. 1


Response To Opponents' Claims':

1. Clearly the Bible states that God is transcendent and spiritual, rather than physical, as well as the peace of God(Philippians 4:7). However, the ideology of transcendence, or spiritual beings are false. There cannot be any non-physical thing. Existence is physicality. Another reason for which humans do not require morales from supernatural being is that morales can be developed without the existence of a supernatural being. As previously stated through evolutionary processes, morales are the result of organisms acting strictly beneficial behaviors.

3. Computational morality is within the domain of observable morality. The two are used together by organisms to understand morality and set standards. Observable morality is the act of observing success/failures of another species' actions and choosing the advantageous set of behaviors(morale behavior).

4. Impossible to perceive love beyond our understanding.



Counter - "Spiritual Beings are False": For the sake of argument, the debate itself conceded the existence of God.

Counter - "Impossible to Perceive Love Beyond Our Understanding": Infants and children disprove that claim. Even pets. Children often experience unconditional love - not grasping that implication.

Counter - "Morality is a Result of Evolution": "Amorality" and "Immorality" are not necessarily excluded by evolution. Both could be seen as beneficial to survival. Some species are solitary - except living with its young, (i.a. tiger). Whether that is morality, is unknowable. But, it is at least amoral.

Counter - " Observational Morality": Yes, we discover what "Equanimitable Morality" is, through "Observation" - but not apart from "Theory of Mind" nor "Self Love".

Historically, the greatest forms of "Complex Morality" have conflicted with what we have considered "sound reason", (e.g. Unconditional Mercy) - a morality hoped for, but is not, nor a necessary product of evolution.
Debate Round No. 2


You have not given support to 'infants/children have disapproved of the concept of "Impossible to perceive love beyond our understanding"'. Yes, in the nature of pets not understanding what love is with "Theory of Mind", it is often instinctual to demonstrate love. This is specifically why I stated about humans" failure to perceive love beyond our understanding. This is an objective fact to our species as a whole.

How could amorality/immorality be considered beneficial to a species' survival?
In fact, Unconditional Mercy is a necessary product for our survival. While it is difficult for me to explain as to how this came to be, it is much in a way like unconditional love, however it excludes subjective love rather than objective love.

Please answer the questions stated above.


I.A. Historically, Amorality and Immorality have lent to survival - especially in crises, trauma, and perceived threats: ruthless tactics by indigenous tribes; Nuclear War; Terrorism; Crimes of Passion; ... B. If Survival is the proof of "morality attained" - then "equanimity" is not a necessary condition; C. Natural Affection contradicts with Unconditional Love and Mercy - Extremely improbable adaptations.

II. Religious texts often remind humanity of their own naive divinity: their authority, (Ps. 82); dogmatic assertions of what they don't understand, (Job 38); who forget their own vulnerabilities and oppress the vulnerable, (Ez. 16, 34, etc).

III.A. Whether artificial or not - we have framed Humanity's moral imperatives in view of "The Transcendent" - and within the sobering reality of humanity as/becoming gods, (Quantum Mechanics, Biological Engineering, Nuclear Warfare, etc). B. This Moral pursuit is necessarily inseparable from the question: "What does it mean to be God?"
Debate Round No. 3


Stellarnaut forfeited this round.


1.A. Theorem's such as "Moore's Law" posit relentless technical advances. 1.C. Where our own advances have as great a potential for self-annihilation, as for survival - our moral standards have significantly tipped that balance.

2.A. Unlike laws that govern technical advances, our "Moral Evolution" has been driven by the standards we compare ourselves with: the Transcendent; Universal Rationality; or even against our own future power and authority. 2.B. Consequently, moral standards have evolved in proportion to the power imagined - and the responsibility required.

3.A. As argued, (and conceded), the contemplation of Unconditional Love and Mercy" has not arisen within humanity through deductive inference, nor as a biological necessity, (a contemplation which, at present, seems contradictory to both); 3.B. Because Transcendent Morality begins with greater power and authority - it has been, and continues to be - a necessary condition to evolve our currently held standards.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by elikakohen 5 months ago

Thanks for the debate. It was my first debate too. So, I apologize for the sometimes lack of organization. It was a great experience!

I was really looking forward to arguments from you to show that Morality is either a Necessary or Sufficient Condition for Evolution. If you are interested - maybe we could tackle that topic?

As for "winning" - many people weigh the "conclusions" more-so than the reasons.

But - I am very interested in the "Merits of the Argument" - and whether the "Reasoning was Valid". Which is why I am really interested in your arguments about evolution.

Thank you again!
Posted by Stellarnaut 5 months ago
Unfortunately I have been unable to post my rebuttal and concluding arguments for round 4. I do not expect to be victorious in this debate due to my mistake. Just wanted to let anyone know looking at this debate that I am new to this website, new to debating(in general)and the specifics of how to make a good set of arguments. I am no professor or theologian so please understand if you feel that any of my arguments were inconsistent or otherwise flawed.

Any advice, constructive criticisms, or other comments are very much appreciated.
Send me a message if you have any of these.

Thank you elikakohen for participating in the debate.
Posted by elikakohen 5 months ago
Stellarnaut - because of word limitations, I did not address: "You have not given support to 'infants/children have disapproved of the concept of "Impossible to perceive love beyond our understanding"'. ...

It is simply a mistake on my part - I should have written it out: "Children who are immersed in the love of their parents, do not necessarily perceive the extent of that love ...."
Posted by elikakohen 5 months ago
missmedic - Countless religious texts and theologians, (even Christian and Jewish texts), also assert that people naturally know how to act morally - by nature. When it is suggested that theists believe that God is required to act morally - it is a distortion, and intentional misrepresentation of their beliefs - (a Strawman fallacy).

The "Pro Argument" here - is that the transcendent is beneficial, and sometimes necessary - for humanity to make "leaps" in moral discoveries.
Posted by missmedic 5 months ago
A billion Atheist prove that you can be moral without gods................
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 4 months ago
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited.