The Instigator
anachronist
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

The argument from morality is not a valid argument for the existence of (a) god(s)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 7 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,139 times Debate No: 23996
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

anachronist

Pro

I will be arguing from the position that the argument from morality, as used frequently by theists like William Lane Craig, is not a valid argument.

The first round is for acceptance, but my opponent may post arguments if they so wish.
socialpinko

Con

===Definitions===

The argument from morality is argued in several forms, however the gist of the position could be summed up as follows (from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

P1: Moral normativity is best explained through the existence of authoritative moral rules.
P2: Authoritative moral rules must be promulgated and enforced by an appropriate moral authority.
P3: The only appropriate moral authority is God.
C: Thus, given that there is moral normativity, there is a God.[1]

God(s) will be defined in the traditional theistic meaning, where God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

An argument is valid "when the conclusion is entailed by, or logically follows from, the premises."[2] A valid argument may be contrasted with a sound argument. An argument is sound when it is "valid and all its premises are true."[2] For the moral argument to be valid, I must only show that IF the premises are all true, THEN the conclusion is logically necessitated.

===Argument===

Premise 1: An argument is valid IFF its premises (if true) necessitate its conclusion.-- From the definition of a valid argument

Premise 2: The premises of the moral argument necessitate its conclusion IFF they are true.

Conclusion: The moral argument is valid.

As can be seen, this argument is clearly valid. Considering the definition of a valid argument, the validity of this argument would be shown if the two premises on which it is composed are shown to be true. On the soundness of my argument, the moral argument itself can be shown rather intuitively to be valid. IF authoritative moral rules best explain moral normativity, and authoritative moral rules entail an appropriate moral authority, and God is the only appropriate moral authority, THEN God exists. Whether all these premises are sound or not is still a matter or debate of course and is not the proper subject matter of the resolution.

===Sources===

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://www.jimpryor.net...
Debate Round No. 1
anachronist

Pro

I meant to title the argument "The argument from morality is not a sound argumet for the existence of God"

Concession.
socialpinko

Con

Pro concedes. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
anachronist

Pro

concession, vote neither.
socialpinko

Con

Vote neither? You conceded the debate. That means vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
anachronist

Pro

But that is due to a mistake in the titling of the debate, and has nothing to do with the debate itself, since neither side has posted any arguments, neither can win. Therefore, don't vote.
socialpinko

Con

Except for that it does. I DID post an argument refuting the resolution. You conceded. Thus Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
@Mouthwash- Pro conceded my case. Does a concession not mean one's opponent wins arguments anymore?
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Oh wait I just remembered his debate with OMGJustinBeiber on the NAP as a valid ethical principle.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Wut
Posted by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
Lol. Okay J. Kenyon.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
At least post "concession" as your round so I don't have to wait three days in between responses.
Posted by anachronist 4 years ago
anachronist
I am forfeiting this debate because as my opponet pointed out, I have incorrectly titled my debate, I apologise for wasting your time socialpinko.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
I might have time to do a debate on the definition of the word valid.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
anachronistsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Sometimes I try on women's clothing and gallop zealously through vacant parking lots.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
anachronistsocialpinkoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument and conduct to the Con for forfeit
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
anachronistsocialpinkoTied
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: Forfeit. Pro conceded rather than posting any argument. Pro could have argued and won, since 1. Con's attempt to keep Pro from discussing the truth of the premises wouldn't necessarily have worked, and 2. Con's argument clearly wasn't valid. (You can't get from "best explanation" to "god exists." At most, you might reach "god's existence is the best explanation.") But Pro forfeited, so Con gets all the points.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
anachronistsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. It's not his fault that you made a mistake.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
anachronistsocialpinkoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded (arguments) then tried to keep the voting a tie (conduct).
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
anachronistsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. Considering Con did post an argument relevant to the presented resolution, Con rightly earns the argument vote.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
anachronistsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't buy Con's demand that he win.