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

Part 2: A Godless universe has as much morality as one with a God

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 394 times Debate No: 86249
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




God determines what it and everything will be. There is no ontological reality apart from God.

-So did he do a good job?

He did a perfect job. He could do no less.

-Do you meant that no matter what he did, it would have been perfect?

-So, if he'd set moral injunctions different from or opposite to the ones we're used to, those would also be perfect?

He could not, as His moral commands flow from His character

End first debate

We'll take it from here.

So if I understand correctly, your position can be summed up as:
To say something is moral is synonymous with saying that God said to do/don't do it.
God could not have given different commands, because His character requires He give the ones He did.

Which would make His character the real determinant of morality, yah?

Maybe the principle you're espousing could be worded something like:
"Whatever the character of the creator of the universe is, is perfectly moral."

And then everything else flows from and depends on that.

Is this an accurate representation of your position?


God cannot be separated from His character anymore than you can be separated from your. Thus, you imply a distinction where none exists. I stand by my original statements.
Debate Round No. 1



So, I'm trying to put your statements into my own words to make sure I understand them well enough to do so.

Like imagine if I'd jumped to arguing against all that, and it turned out not to even be your actual position (like it apparently isn't).

Better to understand first.

So can you help me out here?

For example, what do you think of this representation of your position: "Whatever the character of the creator of the universe is, is perfectly moral."

Is that right?
Or am I wrong to say "creator," because it's not so much important that it's the creator per se, what matters is that it's an omnipotent being? Or maybe some other quality? Or combination of qualities?

See, I can imagine ways I MIGHT be misunderstanding, but I don't know if they're ACTUAL misunderstandings.

So I'm asking.


I deny what I have said is ambiguous.
Debate Round No. 2



Well, I'm willing to forward the debate if you have no objections


As long as you provide your proof to your OP.
Debate Round No. 3


Ah. I'm still on the first point, actually.

You responded to it, and I've been trying to figure out precisely what your response meant ever since.

I suppose I haven't put it into this debate, yet, though.

More or less like this.

God says to do things. Why is he right?

And whatever rule you use for determining he's right, why is that rule right?

Granted it's not in the grammatical form of an assertion, but I'm willing to let people infer the concept I'm getting at.


I have answered these questions.
Debate Round No. 4


Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.