The Instigator
JordanNichols
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is God necessary for objective morality ?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 92976
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

JordanNichols

Pro

I believe that in order for objective moral values to exist there must be a God who sets the intial standards by which each of us are guided to follow by. A set of values that transcends us so that we all may know what it is to be good or bad in our actions. Athesit can not prove that an action is good or bad because without a divine law giver morality simply becomes a set of opinions, each individual may have their own beliefs about what is truly right or wrong.
vi_spex

Con

beliefs are wrong

when is it moral to believe that, it is right to feed your kids deadly poisonous mushrooms to keep them healthy?
Debate Round No. 1
JordanNichols

Pro

Take for example without a God, to say the holocaust was objectively evil and morally wrong even though the Nazi's who carried it out thought that it was good, would be to say your point of view is right while theirs were wrong is really a matter of opinion. And even if the Nazi's would have won the war and succeeded in taking over the world while convincing everyone they were right would still be an opinion without a divine certainty of what is objectively right or wrong.
vi_spex

Con

complication is unnecessary

killing is wrong, but not killing a chicken to eat

belief is doubt
Debate Round No. 2
JordanNichols

Pro

While I may think to start a war that kills millions as objectively right, you may disagree. Then who is truly right in this instance ? And why ? It then comes down to Subjective rather than Objective because each to his own without a moral standard. Another example, take the death penalty for instance. If I were sentenced to death for a crime, I may consider that murder while you may consider it justice, who is right ? Without a law giver independent of human opinion it is all subjective.
vi_spex

Con

it is unnecessary for me to kill bunnies in the wild if i dont need food

you can argue its moral to feed your kids deadly poisonous mushrooms to keep them healthy all you like
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
he wouldnt be immoral, whatever god says is truth, truth is good..
Posted by hitontime 1 year ago
hitontime
God himself would be immoral if he existed. He just watches as innocent people suffer for mistakes not of their own and still has the same expectations from the billionaires and the ones starving of hunger. He expects the same from physically perfect as well as the cripples that can't even feed themselves. Then he lies and promises so many things, none of which happens. He gives no basis for morality
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
is morality a matter of choice?
Posted by SaintRaptor 1 year ago
SaintRaptor
Both sides are garbage so far. Why should an objective morality be decided by an intangible being and be handed down by people who claim to be his prophets, shouldn't morality concerning human actions be decided by humans working together?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
so its healthy to feed your kids deadly poisonous mushrooms i guess
Posted by Dburch111 1 year ago
Dburch111
I would have liked to have taken this debate, but it seems the troll got here before I did. A pity, really.
No votes have been placed for this debate.