The Instigator
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Objective morality would prove naturalism to be false

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 509 times Debate No: 60660
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Benshapiro

Pro

First round is for acceptance.

No new arguments in the final round but rebuttals are permitted.

Naturalism: "a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted."

Objective: "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

(definitions taken from google)

***This debate operates under the assumption that objective morality exists. It is not part of this debate to prove whether or not objective morality exists, only that objective morality would prove naturalism to be false.***
Aerogant

Con

Objective morality does not equal - "god". I see where you're going with this, and you're wrong. It does not disprove natural occurrences - it amplifies the grandness of them. The Universe is not a "being" - it's "becoming". Bacteria are naive, therefore the Universe is not a design, but an unfinished design. Thus your little argument and secrets under your sleeve have been destroyed.
Debate Round No. 1
Benshapiro

Pro

First round was for acceptance.. And judging by your previous debates I can see that you're very likely to be a troll. All well.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if objective purpose exists
P2: Since objective morality exists, objective purpose exists
P3: "Purpose" can only be assigned by sentient beings.
P4: Since a purpose assigned by ourselves cannot be objective, a sentient being apart from human beings is the source of objective purpose.
C: A sentient being apart from human beings is the source of objective morality.

This proves that naturalism, as a purposeless origin of our existence, could not be possible if objective morality exists.
Aerogant

Con

I am a genius, but thanks for demonstrating that you're quick to judge, which means you're quick to believe, thus telling me all I need to know about your integrity.

1. What does a Universe's consequences which accompany its faculties have to do with purpose? Nothing. That's your ignorance speaking - please silence it in its redundant favor.

2. Refer to above.

3. Assigned by what? People do not know their own existence, let alone their purpose. Any "purpose" is a misinterpretation of being committed to a random aspect in life. There's nothing else to it. It's just people being over-excited and forgetting reality because of it.

4. Refer to above.

5. Refer to above.

You are making connections where they cannot exist without contradictions, therefore learn the abstractions of purpose before you try to shove it in your "argument".
Debate Round No. 2
Benshapiro

Pro

I'm not quick to judge, but I am a rational individual. I want to thank you for taking this debate more seriously than a few others you've accepted.

Morality only entails purpose-driven behavior. Robbing, cheating, giving to charity, loving, etc,. If existence arose randomly, like naturalism suggests, no purposeful cause of our existence exists. Therefore, nobody can have any objective purpose. If nobody has any objective purpose, purpose-driven behavior (morality) cannot be objectively right or wrong. Since objective right and wrongs do exist, it logically follows that we don't have a purposeless cause of our existence.

If you say that no purpose exists whatsoever, you also can't argue that morality exists for the purpose of propagation.
Aerogant

Con

We are multi-faceted creatures - what more do you want from what is us legitimately experiencing the Universe through its eyes?

There's simply no ties between man-made "purpose" - and the Universe's unfinished design. We are nothing more than star children playing with the Universe's toys.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
BenshapiroAerogantTied
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: cons argument didn't exactly apply to pro's.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 3 years ago
Codedlogic
BenshapiroAerogantTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to show that "Objective morality would prove naturalism to be false." Pros syllogism only showed that "A sentient being apart from human beings is the source of objective morality." . . . And even this Con effectively refuted by pointing out the first premise was flawed because purpose is an abstraction. Pro did not address this in their rebuttal. Conduct points to Pro as Con tried to assert they are a genius.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
BenshapiroAerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Better args. Evol =/= moral.