In this debate I ask if morality is determined by God. This debate I plan on keeping informal in that I do not expect you to state from any source or keep your format in a proper fashion unless you should chose otherwise or it is asked and this will apply to myself as well. In my question I as about God by this I refer to the monotheistic god of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and intend to keep the debate focused on that premise. In my upcoming arguments I will seemingly re-ask the question however I do wish to inform my opponent and any voters or readers that my debate question is more like, does God have any part in morality and how it is determined or made? I intend to refute the contrary by making it impossible for my opponent not only be unable to prove that morality has anything to do with God but also point out that it is logically impossible for God to be attached to moralities properties or existence in any way. I intend to defend my position using the popular Euthyphro dilemma. In that I open my debate with a question I would like my opponent to answer if he choses.
"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
I will admit I was hoping someone would find this discussion interesting and attempt to take the challenge in hopes that the debate will be a learning experience. however I do not believe in any sense that my opponent has taken this debate seriously and has unfortunately ruined the experience for someone else. Of course contrary to my opponent he has supplied with no greater argument than "Oh its linked" in a sarcastic fashion. Therefore ending the debate without further detail.
i am very serious-i am ready to debate it, and your opening post looks like the usual ones where you say'im going to use this method and to this, etc' ie setting the background for our debate... so round 1 wasnt supposed to have any arguments... did i miss something? please give me the benefit of the doubt which you should as you can easily see i havve no record of scoffing and wrecking debates-im just unusual, now please proceed with a little faith-pun intended.
salvage it with an argument on each side-i now have also wasted round 2 so its still even, just truncated.
Im afraid by the nature of my first argument perhaps its myfault for not expressing it enough was intended for an initial Rebuttal argument as I am unaware how I could extended, and any further deliberation on this debate would unfortunately be not worthwhile with no rounds to argue.
Reasons for voting decision: Con should have put forth an argument in the second round. If Con thought Pro was not taking the debate seriously they should have addressed it in the comments section. As Con did not give Pro the benefit of the doubt and forfeited the round I am awarding conduct points to Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.