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

The Judeo-Christian God is a good foundation for moral values and duties

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 46245
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




In this debate, I will be arguing that the God of the Holy Bible provides a valid and complete foundation for moral values and duties.

First round is acceptance.


I accept.

This will be my first debate here on the site. I eagerly await my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, let us begin. I would like to point out to voters that both of us are assuming the Judeo-Christian God exists in this debate.

My first point about why Yahweh is a good arbiter of morality and ethics concerns the grounding of moraity. The Judeo-Christian God, as an essentially perfect being, can arbitrate objective moral truths in a way that other conceptions of God or an atheistic world-view cannot. By objective moral truths, I mean statements that are binding whether or not you agree with them. Statements like "murdering someone is wrong". That is a good moral statement, but how do we assert it as objective without God as the foundation of that truth? My answer is that this is impossible, and that moral duties and values must rely, ultimately, upon God.

My second point is that without God, we cannot really expect people to abide by society's morals all the time because there is no sound foundation for them. Without such a foundation, they will lie or commit minor offenses against society because there are no solid boundaries for personal behavior.


I'd like to thank my opponent for letting me have the opportunity to be part of this debate and providing his arguments. I'll begin with some rebuttals to his points.

My opponent claims that moral truths are objective, and said truths can only be given by a morally perfect deity. However, one must ask himself, "Are morals truly objective?". Let's use my opponent's example of murder--Is murder always wrong in every circumstance? What about murder in the context of war, or self-defense? Not all (un)moral actions can be painted as black or white- in many instances, they must be looked at in light of context and circumstance, and if the consequences of said actions either hurt other individuals, or help them. This is the fundamental basis of which courts and police investigations are founded upon, and how we treat others in life in general. Without them, a person who, for example, murders out of cold blood, would get the same punishment as someone who murders out of self defense. Actions must always be looked at in light of context, therefore, morals are subjective. We do not need a god to judge if an action is right or wrong, but rather look at the consequences of those actions and the circumstances they were committed in.

My opponent's second claim is that without God, people will not always abide by society's moral standards. we not already see that happening today? Many people break laws everyday, and get punishment for those crimes daily. This only strengthens my previous point--that morality is subjective. Even when boundaries are in place, a person may choose to act beyond those boundaries, even if he knows it's wrong. However, he will still be responsible for the consequences that come from those actions.

My arguments against the opponent are as follows:

1. The Judeo-Christian god himself is not a good arbiter of morality. An example from the story of Moses in Exodus 20:13, where god gives the commandment to Moses and his people "Thou shalt not kill." At this moment in time, Moses was atop Mt. Sinai writing the commandments into tablets of stone. The Israelites down below, however, got tired of waiting for Moses, and began praising their own god- a golden calf (Exodus 32:1-4). Moses returns from the mountain, only to find his people engaged in merriment, and gets angry, breaking the tablets in the process (Exodus 32:19). After grinding up the calf and making the people drink a mixture of it in water (blegh...), the following occurs:

32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

So, not only were the people punished by being forced to drink the mixture of the golden calf, but were commanded, by God, to slaughter each others friends and family, directly contradicting God's command to not murder not even a day later. And if that wasn't enough, God also sends a plague upon the remaining people who just survived a mass slaughter.

32:35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

This is just one of the many moral atrocities committed by the Judeo-Christian god. I await my opponents rebuttals.

Debate Round No. 2


Installgentoo forfeited this round.


I have no other arguments to bring forth. I'll see if my opponent brings any rebuttals to my arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3


Installgentoo forfeited this round.


Welp, I guess that's it for this round. I have to say I'm pretty disappointed with my opponent, since this was my first debate. If anyone else would like to pick up on this debate with me, please message me~

I thank my opponent anyway for letting me present my arguments. Peace, love, and stardust~
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF