The Moral Argument is a sound and valid proof for god

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Finished