The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
The Contender
TheMarketLibertarian
Con (against)

Proof of God: Opposing Moral Ideals

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
TheMarketLibertarian has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 447 times Debate No: 103443
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

1. If God does not exist, objective moral ideals do not exist.

2. Objective moral ideals do exist:

(2a. If opposing moral ideals exist, some moral ideals are wrong).

(2b. If some moral ideals are wrong, objective moral ideals exist).

(2c. Opposing moral ideals do exist).

(2d. Therefore, some moral ideals are wrong).

(2e. Therefore, objective moral ideals do exist).

3. Therefore, God exists. QED
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
Actually, I dont know who is envious. The people making them so aggressive or purushadasa making him so darned stupid.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
You're just envious because you know my argument is right and you have no refutation.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Debates are not "spam:" This is a debate.
Posted by Masterful 11 months ago
Masterful
Debate reported as it has now turned into spam.
Posted by CRAZYMAN890 11 months ago
CRAZYMAN890
you are a spammer i will now troll you
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
None of your points were proven, actually.
Posted by missmedic 11 months ago
missmedic
thank you for proving my point
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"The intellectual honesty answer to God's existence, is no one knows"

If you truly do not know, then you are not qualified to speak on the subject at all -- neither on the Pro nor on the Con side. Other people, such as myself, do know, and we are therefore qualified to speak on the subject -- unlike you.

". Any other answer is based on ignorance, arrogance or emotion"

No it isn't -- it is baed on the objectively true knowledge of the subject.

"Religious faith is both arrogant and ignorant"

Yes, and your religious faith in atheist Dogma is especially arrogant and ignorant.

"Far from being arrogant the scientific method is one of humility."

Without God, there could be no science.

" It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge."

I acknowledge the limits of your knowledge: They are extremely restricted -- exactly like those of the dumb lower animal.

"empirical evidence"

Without God, there could be no empirical evidence for anything.

". Surely it is the superstitious or religious approach which claims to know the answers without any evidence except "faith" that is the arrogant approach."

Yes, and your personal faith in your silly religion of atheist Dogma is the most arrogant of all approaches.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Posted by missmedic 11 months ago
missmedic
The intellectual honesty answer to a god's existence, is no one knows. Any other answer is based on ignorance, arrogance or emotion, like your answers. Religious faith is both arrogant and ignorant. Because of it's certainty
Far from being arrogant the scientific method is one of humility. It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn't provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, but investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. Surely it is the superstitious or religious approach which claims to know the answers without any evidence except "faith" that is the arrogant approach.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

""If God does not exist, then objective moral ideals do not exist."

Premise one is a non sequitur."

No it isn't.

"before you can postulate as to the consequences of a God-free universe."

I never mentioned a "God-free universe," so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" Your "objective standard of morals" is based simply on asserting your God is the standard."

No it isn't.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.