The Instigator
izbo10
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Mr.Infidel
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points

The Moral Argument is a sound and valid proof for god

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 8 votes the winner is...
Mr.Infidel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,010 times Debate No: 19401
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (51)
Votes (8)

 

izbo10

Con

My opponent will be taking the pro on this:

Here is the argument:

1. If objective moral facts exists, God exists.
2. Objective moral facts exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

My opponent must argue that this argument proves god. In order for the argument to be sound or valid the argument must have all premises true and the conclusion must necessarily follow. My job will be to show that the argument is not sound or valid. He can start in the first round and will close out the last round with the word finished and nothing more.

Good luck to my opponent, he needs it with this ridiculous argument.
Mr.Infidel

Pro

I thank izbo10 for challenging me to this debate. I will argue that the Moral Argument for G-d's existence is not only valid, but sound; thus proving that G-d exists.
  1. If Objective Moral Facts Exists, G-d Exists.
  2. Objective Moral Facts Exists.
  3. Therefore, G-d Exists.
What are objective moral facts?

When I say "objective," I refer to the doctrine that X is true regardless of any human opinion. For example, to say genocide is morally wrong is to say that "it is wrong for anyone to commit genocide," that is X is universally undesirable, that it is wrong to do X in every situation.

(p1) If Objective Moral Facts Exists, God Exists


Part 1: Degree of Incumbency

According to this premise, if there are objective moral facts, then these have their foundation in the nature of God. This is because morality is prespective and it is expressed to us in the form of statements such as: "Thou shalt not lie," and "Thou shalt not torture babies for fun," etc. When you say do not do X because it is morally wrong, it carry's a degree of incumbency--that is, they communicate commands to us. Both commands and communications, however, can only originate from an intellegent mind. This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its commands to be binding on us. Hence, it is a fact that moral facts require the existence of a supreme legislator who issues these commands to us. [1]

Part 2: Human Minds Disagree

It is a fact of life that human minds disagree. Because of that undeniable fact, it is forced that humans could not have originated from human conception. Indeed, the Universal Moral Laws must have originated from a transcendent and all-knowing/all-loving being. If two people disagreed, then who should we trust for our moral values? If two cultures disagree, then which culture should we trust? If there was an economic meltdown and social robbery, cannibalism, and murder became norm; would it become morally acceptable? By no means.

(p2) Objective Moral Facts Exist

Given my partner's record from the forums, it is clear that this is not in dispute. Nevertheless, I shall still defend premise 2.

Part 1: Epistemic Normativity

For there to be a rational conversation, there must be certain norms abotu how we should not think. Indeed, as agents with advanced cognitive faculties, we ought to believe what is true and reject what is not true. Take a look at these syllogism:
  1. If X is true, then we should believe X.
  2. X is true.
  3. Therefore, we should believe X.
If one asks the question "But why should I be rational?" is already reasoning within a rational framewrok, because his queswtion presupposes the existence of objective rational norms. Take a look at this syllogism:
  1. If Y is false, then Y should be rejected.
  2. Y is false.
  3. Therefore, Y should be rejected.

Indeed, the very act of disputing affirms the existence of objectivity. Imagine this following conversation:

Mr.Infidel: Izbo10, what do you think of my argument from moral facts?
Izbo10: Indeed, it is a sound argument--your conclusion was well-argued, and I see no problems with it.
Mr.Infidel: So, do you now believe in God?
Izbo10: No
Mr.Infidel: Why not?
Izbo10: Because I have no duty to embrace the truth.

This conversation would be truly bizar and would undeniably prove that izbo10 is an idiot and a troll; however, Izbo10 is the smartest person on DDO and therefore would not have such a conversation.

Summary:

Izbo10 needs to either debunk premise 1 and premise 2, which premise 2 is agreed upon as evident through his recent forum rants. Secondly, izbo10 needs to justify objective morality without God.

Thank you!


References

[1] Kohai-vs.-Contradiction: "There Is No God." http://www.debate.org...
[2] Contradiction-vs.-EthanHuOnDebateOrg: "It is probable that objective moral facts exist." http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
izbo10

Con

I do not contest premise 2, so I leave that stand I contest premise 1. "Lets rock"- source Al Bundy Married with children. Anyone who doesn't give sources to me after that is an idiot.

I will now defend the existence of objective moral fairies.

IF objective morals exist, objective moral faries exist.

(p1) If Objective Moral Facts Exists, Objective moral Fairies Exist

Part 1: Degree of Incumbency

According to this premise, if there are objective moral facts, then these have their foundation in the nature of Objective Moral Fairies. This is because morality is prespective and it is expressed to us in the form of statements such as: "Thou shalt not lie," and "Thou shalt not torture babies for fun," etc. When you say do not do X because it is morally wrong, it carry's a degree of incumbency--that is, they communicate commands to us. Both commands and communications, however, can only originate from an intellegent mind. This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its commands to be binding on us. Hence, it is a fact that moral facts require the existence of a supreme legislator who issues these commands to us. [1]

Part 2: Human Minds Disagree

It is a fact of life that human minds disagree. Because of that undeniable fact, it is forced that humans could not have originated from human conception. Indeed, the Universal Moral Laws must have originated from transcendent good beings. If two people disagreed, then who should we trust for our moral values? If two cultures disagree, then which culture should we trust? If there was an economic meltdown and social robbery, cannibalism, and murder became norm; would it become morally acceptable? By no mean

See how much fun it is too throw in your favorite nonsensical supernatural being into this syllogism and claim it proves something, Now does my opponent believe objective moral fairies exist, probably not. You know why,because the arguement fails. Premise 1 is not proven to be true, anymore then I have demonstrated that my premise 1 is true.

Now it is up to my opponent to demonstrate that god is an answer to objective morality and objective moral fairies are not. After all, morality is a complex thing and through inductive reasoning we know that complex things come about from multiple causes more often then his fallacy of a appeal to a singular cause.

With that said if you understand logic and you see why it fails for objective moral fairies you will see why it fails for god. My opponent has been previously indoctrinated to think it is more rational to believe in god then objective moral fairies, but in this argument you cannot bring in this preexisting indoctrination, it must prove it from scratch, yes it must MIG.
Mr.Infidel

Pro

Thank you izbo10 for your arguments.
  1. If objective moral facts exist, G-d exists.
  2. Objective moral facts exist. [not in dispute]
  3. Therefore, G-d exists.

It is clear to anyone who has read izbo10's arguments that he is using the argumentum ad ridicul. I am arguing that a transcedent being (God) must have given us moral facts. I am not arguing for the truth of any religion or belief, but I am arguing for the fact that a transcedent being exists.

Izbo10 substitutes G-d for "objective magic faries" without realizing that I am arguing for the existence of a TRANSCEDENT being. For now, I am taking an AGNOSTIC stance on who, or what, that transcedent being is.

Please extend my arguments as my opponent has not disproved premise 1. In fact, all what he has done is confirm premise 1 by a ridiculous argumentum ad ridicul and strawman.

If you would like a rational approach to the divine origin of the Torah, then please watch the video.

To conclude: my opponent has not attacked the syllogism. The syllogism is better defined as the following:

  1. If objective moral facts exist, then a transcedent being exist.
  2. Objective moral facts exist.
  3. Therefore, a transcedent being exists.

Thank you for your strawman!

Debate Round No. 2
izbo10

Con

Point 1 he agreed to the original syllogism in the resolution. Point 2 here is where the original syllogism comes from:

http://imageshack.us...
http://www.debate.org...

After viewing this, I hope it is shown that it was he not I who made the argument this way. His ridiculous claim that I am straw manning the argument comes from none other then himself. He is apparently aware that you can link on here, so why he was stupid enough to not think I could show that he used this argument for god, not just some arbitrary transcendent being is beyond me. Since you are a chess player I call checkmate on your intellectual dishonesty.

So the idiot doesn't like it now that I have turned the tables on him and shown he is clearly and utterly falling for nonsense for his god, when he wouldn't fall for it elsewhere. He claims I am using argumentum ad ridicul, for his information it is actually argumentum ad ridculum. Figure I will attempt to educate the uneducatable while making this debate. But, alas I am not doing this. He has opened the door to supernatural causes, so I am merely asking him why he rules out this other supernatural cause. If supernatural causes are part of our dichotomy of choices for the causes of objective morality, why transcendent objective moral fairies. I would actually suggest that I am not the one using this fallacy, but instead my opponent is, he finds Objective moral fairies ridiculous so he doesn't feel the need to justify god over them. He needs to demonstrate this otherwise he is the one using the very fallacy he is calling me on. I am only giving equal footing to god and objective moral fairies until one is demonstrated to be more likely true then the other. The irony is I have given an inductive reason for believing the OMF's over god. Thanks for playing, but I do apologize you aren't very good at this game mr. infidel.
Mr.Infidel

Pro

Extend my arguments. It is clear that izbo10 does not want to have a rational argument. G-d is defined as a transient being; nothing more. We are agnostic as to who that transcendent being is. All what the moral argument does is justify the belief in a transcendent being.

If we want to get into a discussion as to why that transcedant being is Hashem, then please watch the video and we can discuss.

Ps. Please prove the fairy's do not exist.

For now, vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
izbo10

Con

My opponent is clearly showing a bias towards god, that he will not grant to objective moral fairies. You can't start a discussion with someone who doesn't believe in what you are arguing for, and assume your position carries anymore weight then another alternative position. When my opponent opens the door to supernatural reasoning, he swings that door completely open. He can't just pick and choose which supernatural beings he wants to work. That is what he is doing. I think it is obvious at this point that my opponent has picked god and not objective moral fairies as the cause of objective morality. He is unable to answer why he has made this choice. It leaves him in such a disgraceful position as to try and claim that I am ridiculing him when I ask for his justification for picking his supernatural being over other supernatural beings.

So, far we have no reason to believe premise 1 is true, since there are alternative options to his god as reasons for objective morality.

What my opponent wants to do is open the door for his god to sneak in the supernatural route, what he doesn't want to do is admit that once he does so, the argument is based on a false dichotomy. Either god or no objective morals. I have pointed out that if objective moral fairies do exist then objective morality would be here without god. He has no response to this, but to whine and complain. I am sorry I find god no more believable then objective moral fairies. There is no reason that my opponent has given to show that this is not the case, other then to whine about it. Therefore, we must concede the premise 1, is simply not true as,my opponent has left open the posssible existence of objective moral fairies. Since premise 1 is not true, the argument falls as unsound and he has not met his burden of proof. If my opponent does not step up his game in the next couple rounds you are forced to vote Con.
Mr.Infidel

Pro

What this debate is about

This debate is about whether or not the Moral Argument is sound and valid proof for God.

Sound:
In mathematical logic, a logical system has the soundness property if and only if its inference rules prove only formulas that are valid with respect to its semantics. In most cases, this comes down to its rules having the property of preserving truth, but this is not the case in general. The word derives from the Germanic 'Sund' as in Gesundheit, meaning health. Thus to say that an argument is sound means, following the etymology, to say that the argument is healthy. [1]


Valid: The conclusion is entailed by its premises; it is true under every circumstance, and interpretation; and that if every argument of that logical form is valid. [2]

What is God?

Remember I defined God simply as a transcendant being. I never once said who that G-d was. (Indeed, this argument, like all philisophical arguments show only the probability of a transcendant being and takes a deistic view on that being). Thus, his argumentum ad ridicul is uncalled for.

Summary

I have argued that the moral argument is proof for a transcendant being as it is impossible for a non-transcendant being to have given us objective morality, because human minds disagree. Moreover, I have also shown that it is not merely evolution.

Izbo10 has been abusive this entire debate and has not attacked ANYTHING. Please show how those "fairies" do not exist.

Voting Guide (not that this is needed).

Conduct: Izbo10 has been abusive this entire debate and has no real desire for a rational discuission.

Spelling: Numerous spelling errors from izbo10.

Arguments: izbo10 dropped all my arguments.

Sources: Only I used sources.

vote pro!

Reference
Debate Round No. 4
izbo10

Con

The intellectual dishonesty runs deep with this one. Two huge pieces of intellectual dishonesty, trying to use the mathematical definition of sound rather then philosophical. Here is the philosophical definition.

Sound= A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

The second piece of intellectual dishonesty comes in trying to sneak god as having the characteristics of only being transcendent. That is not god, god is more then transcendent. As in my example if objective moral fairies exist they would clearly not be god. None of the fairies on their own could possibly create objective morals, it takes all of them working together. They are also incapable of doing much more then creating objective morality, this is clearly not god, by any definition other then an intellectually dishonest one. My opponent shoots himself in the foot by claiming to be arguing for a deistic god. That is a huge issue as a deist god is not just transcendent but the creator of the universe. Objective moral fairies are not the creators of the universe, just the cause of objective morality.

Now to return to our definition of sound: A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound

So my argument as that idiot cerebral and my opponent fail to see is that Premise 1 of the moral argument is simply not actually true.

Premise 1 is: 1. If objective moral facts exists, God exists

Last I checked if objective moral fairies exist without god, objective morals exist. Therefore premise 1 is false. Premise 1 clearly implies that if objective moral facts exist, god is necessary. Since my opponent has refused to defend against other supernatural causes of objective morality, we can clearly say that premise 1 is in no way true.

It is clear that my opponent wants to assume god is the only cause of objective morality, he is using his own fallacy, that he calls me on, to eliminate other supernatural causes. At the end of the day Premise 1 is an unfounded assertion based on indoctrination and not actually true. Since in Philosophy the premises must actually be true to be sound and we have no reason to believe what so ever that objective morality makes god necessary, then it is not sound.

Here is my argument in syllogism form:

Objective moral fairies can exist without god
if objective moral fairies exist objective morality exists
Objective morality can exist without god

That directly contradicts the first premise that if objective morality exists god exists.

Night night thanks for playing, it was funny seeing my opponent fall for such a blatant god of the gaps fallacy.

Again I repeat, it cannot both be true that objective morality makes god necessary, yet can exist without god. That is a blatant contradiction. My opponent opened the door to supernatural explanations for morality, now he doesn't like the results. I also want to reiterate that my opponent is straw manning his own position, he went from saying that the argument was for god, to only a transcendent being. Then he further contradicts himself by claiming he is arguing for a deistic god which has other features, that are common to god. I think that says all that needs to be said about my opponent, he tried to cheat his was to an transcendent being, then glaim that must be god, full well knowing god is more then just a transcendent being.
Debate Round No. 5
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
I'll have to wait until after the holiday. And then we'll have to really hammer out the resolution to our mutual satisfaction. But I think it will be fun.
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 5 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
wiploc. Letss do it! Challenge me, I say no./ Con (:
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 5 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
wiploc. Letss do it! Challenge me, I say no./ Con (:
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 5 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
Hahahahahhhahahah(: This is so funny., its basically a rant the whole time... interesting arguments for both sides though; i find it funny and strangely 'transcendent' itself how izbo bases his complete arguments on his stolid belief in the existence of objective moral facts. lol, im having a debate with contradiction right now on that(; yeah, basically.. i felt pro provided a better basis and criterion for which any premises concerning this debate can be judged; he has provided tangible reasons for voting issues, as well as being more respectable and graciously professional the whole time. Thus my vote will go to Mr. Infidel(: grats.!
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
you should wiploc, maybe if they heard it from you, they would stop being so ignorant.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
I'm tempted to start a new debate on whether Izbo won this debate.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
"Gotta love theist thinking, I assert my god has a characteristic that no other supernatural beings have, therefore I win."

LOL.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
That's right, Izbo10...vent, vent, vent.....
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Really man-is-good with your lack of understanding it is amazing you are out of kindergarten, with the way you don't comprehend that I am making a point that until you prove god more likely then moral faires, they are on equal ground. That does NOT mean I believe in moral fairies. It is just saying he needs to prove god is more likely then them which isn't the case as complex beings have more then one source most of the time. Just because you were preprogrammed for god doesn't mean god is more likely. If you lived in a world where people thought it was moral fairies you find the god concept just as retarded.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
I don't accept either, I am just showing that neither means jack or $hit. You are the one giving weight to gods argument while just laughing off the other with no evidence and voting on special pleading not me.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
izbo10Mr.InfidelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Well done. Pro was more convincing.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
izbo10Mr.InfidelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Unfortunately, Izbo10's plagiarism of Kohai's argument counts as a deduction of conduct, and his refusal to stop swearing or stress his opponent's "lack of intelligence" would make the conduct count less than zero. Arguments were embryonic: ridiculing your opponent by creating "objective moral fairies" fail since god cannot be interchangeable with fairies...Mr. Infidel did note that they were separated due to God's transcendence. A sorry end for Izbo10's "stellar" career....
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
izbo10Mr.InfidelTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, I've certainly come to believe in objective moral fairies after this debate. Con should be very precise in how his arguments actually relate to the resolution, and do a quick grammar check. Pro should NEVER suppose that their opponents do not want to have a rational argument. Con did have a case, even if it wasn't a good one.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
izbo10Mr.InfidelTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually argues the resolution, izbo simply copy-pastes his argument and replaces God with fairies and proceeds to rant and ad-hom.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
izbo10Mr.InfidelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets the conduct point because Con was his usual self. Con gets the argument points for successful refutation. Con isn't required to refute in more than one way. Con made one point only: If objective morality had to come from an intelligence, that intelligence is not proven to be transcendental, nor is it proven to be God. Pro tried to duck, saying he didn't mean "God" when he said "God," but it was in the resolution. And Pro kept capitalizing God, and saying he had proved God.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
izbo10Mr.InfidelTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: At no point did Con attempt to meet his BoP or address the arguments (as weak as they were) put forward by Pro.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
izbo10Mr.InfidelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: See Comments
Vote Placed by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
izbo10Mr.InfidelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Izbo obviously did not understand what how the term "G-d" was being used by Mr.Infidel. This resulted in him making a fool out of himself. However, I have never heard the argument before and have (so far) never heard a rebuttal against it, so I have to be for it. And Izbo didn't get sources because he didn't provide a link to the song and didn't use correct format.