Is A God Required For Moral Standards?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
Stellarnaut forfeited this round.
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.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|