The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Ad_Infinitum
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist

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 3 votes the winner is...
Ad_Infinitum
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,104 times Debate No: 16419
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

Resolution

The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist

Burden of Proof


Pro will affirm the resolution
Con will oppose the resolution

Debate details

4 Rounds
8,000 Character limit
72 Hours to respond
1 Month voting period

NO VIDEO LINKS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROBLEMS ?

If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPECTATIONS

It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics, no cheap shots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round 4

Round 4 is the last round, no new arguments are to be made in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFINITIONS

Definition of God = Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover

Necessary = Something that is a required condition for something else to be the case
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opening Statement & What this debate is about

Objective morality means a morality that exists independtly of personal belief, that is to say things are right and wrong regardless if any person believes in them or not. For example if it is the case that rape is objectively wrong, then even if everyone believed rape was ok, it would still be wrong, because the moral rightness or wrongness is not dependent on what a person believes is right or wrong.

Some have argued that the existence of God is logically necessary for objective morality to exist, that is to say if God does not exist then objective morality does not exist. But what reason is there to justify that the existence of objective morality is dependent on the existence of God ? Why can't objective morality exist absent God ?

Until proven other wise, it is possible that objective morality can exist, even if God does not exist.

I look forward to Pros reply

Ad_Infinitum

Pro

INTRODUCTIONS

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate, as it is a topic that I am rather interested in from a philosophical standpoint. I truly believe in what my argument will be and I always enjoy it when others try and refute my beliefs, as it forces me to think about my beliefs even harder.I will abide by my opponent's request for no semantics, cheap shots, or foul play, so long as he does as well.

RESOLUTION

My opponent presented his introductory argument/statement in a very specific way. He next to last statement was "Until proven otherwise, it is possible that objective morality can exist, even if God does not exist." This shows that the real issue at hand is the existence of objective morality and how it is existent even if God doesn't exist. To better debate the argument at hand, I will not be debating that "God's existence necessitates objective morality", but that "objective morality isn't a standard that applies to this universe" (with a guiding assumption that God isn't real.) This seems completely fair and will better let us debate the issue at hand. Should my opponent wish the topic to be oriented a different way he should say so in his next round, and I will do my best to follow that orientation. However, I strongly believe that this is the issue that my opponent wishes to debate.

ARGUMENT

My argument is not a particulary large one, and one that hopefully will seem rather intuitive. Although I'm not going to play semantics, it is necessary to define some terms in order to see my argument as clearly as possible.

My opponent has defined objective morality that exists independently of human belief. (Ie, killing is wrong no matter what.) My opponent noticeably doesn't define morality itself, however. So what is morality?

Merriam-Webster defines a moral as something that is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong". This definition reveals that morality is based off of principles regarding human behavior. When my opponent says that objective morality can exist independent of humans, he is saying that principles inherently exist regarding human behavior that is independent of humans themselves. This is counter-intuitive, as it takes humans' existence in order for their to be principles regarding them. So clearly objective morality cannot exist without the existence of humans.

Here is the point where my opponent would say that objective morality requires human existence. If that is so, then objective morality is only instituted when humans are, since there are possible worlds in which no humans exist. And if that is so, then something had to institute the principles independent of humans, and if objective morality is idependent of humans it would take some other type of sentient being in order for this moral code to even be instituted. Since no other sentient life has been found besides humans, they play no role in any logical argument, including this one.

So my opponent claims that there exist principles of human nature independent of humans themselves. This I have shown to be impossible, and as of now, the argument is in my favor, and I avidly await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Resolution and what this debate is about

Pro says "This shows that the real issue at hand is the existence of objective morality and how it is existent even if God doesn't exist."

I think I should clarify something, the resolution doesn't state that objective morality exists, it states that God is a necessary precondition IF objective morality exists. Pro doesn't have to commit themselves that objective morality actually exists, they can if they want too, but its not necessary in order to affirm the resolution. I do realize I didn't have the If in their so maybe that was bad on my part, but what I was trying to do was not tie Pros hands by forcing them to commit that objective morality actually exists.

In hindsight maybe it would of been better if I worded the resolution something like "Objective morality can only exist if God exists" maybe that's easier to understand ?

Precondition = A condition that must exist or be established before something can occur or be considered; a prerequisite. [1]

For example if the resolution was "the existence of bread is necessary to make a sandwich"

This doesn't mean that sandwich exists, just that IF the sandwich exists then a necessary pre-condition would be the existence of bread. Like wise the resolution "The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist" doesn't mean that objective morality exists, just that IF objective morality exists, then God exists.

Thus I disagree with your statement of intent " I will not be debating that "God's existence necessitates objective morality""

Hopefully this clarifies the resolution, I would remind Pro that you are well..........Pro, meaning you are to provide argument in support of the resolution.

Sources

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Ad_Infinitum

Pro

I thank Con for their reply and clarification, and I'll now offer my own.

RESOLUTION INTERPRETATION

As my opponent pointed out, there was a slight issue with how I interpreted the resolution, one that my opponent quickly corrected. My opponent stated that a better resolutional wording would be "IF objective morality exists, then God exists." This, however, is actually not what the resolution states. The resolution's wording says that there must be a God in order for objective morality to exist. In other words, IF there is a God, then objective morality exists and IF there isn't a God, then objective morality doesn't exist. [ (G->M) ^ (~G->~M) ] where G is "there is God" and M is "objective morality exists". With that, we see I have to logical "pillars" to hold up, one of which at least my opponent must tear down in order to win, and also that his proposed resolution in his last round is invalid. Furthermore, my opponent makes the statement in his opening argument that says "It is possible that if God doesn't exist, then objective morality does. This can be represented as (~G->P) where G is "there is God" and P is "objective morality could exist". I will move on to each of these three "pillars" and either fortify or refute them.

*(G ---> M) If there is God, then objective morality exists.*

The God that the opponent describes has the characteristics of the Christian god. Because of this, and also because he uses the capitalized version of the word god which generally applies to the Christian god, I'll be using the Christian god as the god that is in this logical pillar. According to the Bible, which is true if the Christian god is real, God says that there are things that are objectively right or wrong. This is a clear system of objective morality, as certain actions are deemed objectively wrong/right within. Because of this, if there is God, then it logically follows that objective morality would exist, because objective morality is an inherent characteristic of the God that's in the Christian bible.

*(~G ---> ~M) If it is not the case that there is God, then it is not the case that there is objective morality*

Here I must prove how objective morality can't exist if God doesn't exist. If you will refer to my very first argument, you will see that I have already done this. If you'll look at my opponent's response, you'll see that he failed to refute or even mention these arguments. While I didn't understand my opponent's intention with the resolution, my arguments still apply we see now, because my arguments still uphold this pillar of the resolution without breaking the resolution's context. Until my opponent refutes these arguments, then both of my pillars still stand. This argument also applies to my opponent's pillar that he must uphold. I will address that now.

*Opponent's pillar: (~G ---> P) If it is not the case that there is God, then objective morality could exist.*

If we look at my argument that I presented last round that my opponent did not refute, we see that it also refutes this pillar that my opponent must uphold. I've shown that (~G --->~P), or in words that If it is not the case that there is God, then it is not the case that objective morality could exist. In other words, If God doesn't exist, neither does objective morality. I clearly showed in my last round that it was not possible that objective morality could exist without God in my last speech because of internal inconsistencies within the concept. My opponent failed to address it, and because of that, it remains standing.

CONCLUSION

I apologize for my short response, but I didn't have much to cover seeing as my opponent did not address my argument, but only my resolution interpretation. In this round I've done the following:

A) Rejected my opponent's suggested resolution (that was mentioned in Round 2) on the grounds that it did not comply with the original resolution.

B) Converted the original resolution into symbolic logic for more clarity.

C) Clearly defined each of the competitors' burdens of proof, and called them logical "pillars" that each must uphold.

D) Showed that my opponent failed to address my argument, and that my argument upheld my 2nd pillar and refuted his only pillar.

E) Presented an argument that upheld my first pillar.

I look forward to my opponent's response and I look forward to debating in Round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Resolution

Pro says "The resolution's wording says that there must be a God in order for objective morality to exist. In other words, IF there is a God, then objective morality exists and IF there isn't a God, then objective morality doesn't exist."

Pro is right on the first part "The resolution's wording says that there must be a God in order for objective morality to exist." but wrong on the second part "In other words, IF there is a God, then objective morality exists and IF there isn't a God, then objective morality doesn't exist"

Pro confuses a necessary pre condition with a possible consequence. Ill give illustration to show the difference.

In order to get wet, a necessary pre condition is that water exists. But this does not equate to that if water exists you will get wet, you might get wet, or you might not. Like wise if God is a necessary pre condition for objective morality to exist this does not equate that if objective morality exists then God MUST exist, God might exist or God might not.

The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist = Objective morality can ONLY exist if God exists

Compare this to Pros claim which is "God is necessary for objective morality to exist = In other words, IF there is a God, then objective morality exists

Its not enough to prove that objective morality exists in order to affirm the resolution, you have to prove that objective morality can ONLY exist if God exists. Even if objective morality is proven true, and even if God is shown to be a possible prioir condition, this isn't enough, because in order to affirm the resolution it has to be shown that God is a NECESSARY prior condition for the existence of objective morality, not just a possible prior condition for the existence of objective morality.

I think Pro put it best where they said "The resolution's wording says that there must be a God in order for objective morality to exist." Well said Pro...........but not the other bit :)

Countering Pros arguments

Pro makes some points about the definition of God being compatible with the Christian concept of God. Ok but what does this prove ?

Pro says "According to the Bible, which is true if the Christian god is real, God says that there are things that are objectively right or wrong."

I would like to point out there is alot of different "Christian" Gods out there. For example the christian God that sent hurricane katrina too punish poor black people and or homosexuals, the christian God that sent the hurricane for other sins or the christian God that didn't send it at all. If one of these christian Gods is true, then the other christian Gods are false.

Pro says "This is a clear system of objective morality, as certain actions are deemed objectively wrong/right within. Because of this, if there is God, then it logically follows that objective morality would exist, because objective morality is an inherent characteristic of the God that's in the Christian bible."

Some person saying that is is objectively right or wrong doesn't mean it is. Your going to need more than your own assertion of biblical morality to back that up.

Pro says "if there is God,then it logically follows that objective morality would exist, because objective morality is an inherent characteristic of the God that's in the Christian bible.""

How is objective morality an inherent characteristic of the God in the Christian bible ? Even if one of the Christian Gods is true, how does this prove that God is a necessary pre condition and not just a possible prior condition ?

A simple question remains, has Pro proved that God is a necessary pre condition for the existence of objective morality ? no. I could concede at this point that God exists and that the existence of God means objective morality exists, but this doesn't prove that God is necessary for objective morality to exist. In order to prove that, Pro would need to show that not only is God a prior condition for objective morality, but that God is the ONLY possible prior condition that would result in the existence of objective morality. Absent this proof, the resolution is not affirmed.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Ad_Infinitum

Pro

I thank my opponent for their response, however I am slightly disappointed that my argument was not completely understood. I hope that the voters understand it, but for my opponent's sake, I'll go over it again for clarity, while countering my opponent's arguments.

RESOLUTION INTERPRETATION

My opponent presents a rather lengthy section about the resolution interpretation stating that I have completely misunderstood, been debating wrong, etc. However, it seems this is not misunderstanding on my part, but my opponent's part. My reasoning is that he arrives at the same interpretation as the one I am debating. My opponent claims that I am confusing the cause of objective morality, and seems to believe that I am saying that both God and objective morality exist and justifying my point by saying that one caused the other. That in itself is a logical fallacy, however that is not what I am doing. My opponent states I must show that objective morality can ONLY exist if God exists. This is EXACTLY what I am doing. I am showing that if God exists, than objective morality exists and that if God doesn't exist then neither can objective morality. This is clearly what my opponent is demanding and something I am clearly doing.

My opponent summarizes his "Resolution" speech with my own words saying "there must be a God in order for objective morality to exist." I agree. This is what I have been saying since last round and what I have been arguing the entire debate.

ARGUMENTS

I will be answering my opponent's attacks which are in the form of questions, generally, and then pointing out what my opponent failed to attack and finally summarizing my points.

"Pro makes some points about the definition of God being compatible with the Christian concept of God. Ok but what does this prove?"

I wasn't attempting to prove anything with this alone; I was simply adopting a definition that would be easier for both sides to work with. Your definition of God fit the Christian God's bill and your capitalization of 'god' implied the Christian god, so I'm using the Christian god as the "God" referenced in the resolution.

"There [are] [a lot] of different 'Christian' Gods out there."

I realize that there are many different concepts of God that different Christians worship, however I explicitly referred to the God of the Christian Bible. I will cede that there are different interpretations of the Bible, however no rational interpretation can deny the fact that the Christian God uses a system of objective morality. This is evidenced in the existence of the ten commandments. My opponent, in his opening speech, states that an example of objective morality would be some sort of moral law that is always wrong or right in any situation. These commandments are exactly that, and claim some are wrong in every situation.

"Some person saying that is is objectively right or wrong doesn't mean it is. Your going to need more than your own assertion of biblical morality to back that up. "

You have to remember that this isn't some person, it's God. The definition of God that you provided states that one characteristic of God is all-powerful. If an all-powerful being has the will for something to exist, then it does. God says that objective morality exists, and because he is all-powerful, it does. This is taken simply from the definition my opponent provided.

"How is objective morality an inherent characteristic of the God in the Christian bible ? "

If the Christian God according to the Christian Bible is true, then so is the Christian Bible. Remember, it's not my responsibility to prove that God is real, but to prove that IF he was real THEN that is the ONLY way objective morality can exist. Anyway, if the Bible is true, then it's contents are also true, including the part regarding the ten commandments. As I previously showed in the last argument, the ten commandments show that, according to my opponent's definition of objective morality, objective morality is a system that is used by God. If this is so, then we see that objective morality is a characteristic brought about directly by God. Remember, these are God's commandments made by him, not man, as is evidence by Moses going to Mt. Sinai in order to obtain the commandments.

"Even if one of the Christian Gods is true, how does this prove that God is a necessary pre condition and not just a possible prior condition ?"

I actually showed in my argument in Round 2 that has STILL been unrefuted that God is a necessary precondition, not just a possible prior condition. My opponent has still failed to even address this argument. If he fails to once more in his next speech, it will be clear that he is simply ignoring it. However, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and refer him to my speech in round 2 under the section "ARGUMENT".

"A simple question remains, has Pro proved that God is a necessary pre condition for the existence of objective morality ?"

Yes. I have clearly shown with multiple arguments, including symbolic logic arguments, that objective morality will ABSOLUTELY exist if God does and that if God doesn't exist then objective morality ABSOLUTELY CAN'T exist. I've shown this multiple times with many arguments and my opponent has hardly addressed many of them. He has simply gone over the resolution again (which I am following even according to him) and some minor points that I've already addressed in previous arguments.

" I could concede at this point that God exists and that the existence of God means objective morality exists, but this doesn't prove that God is necessary for objective morality to exist."

My opponent is right here, that alone doesn't prove that God is necessary for objective morality. However, I've shown in round 2 under "ARGUMENT" why God is necessary for objective morality. I'll reiterate again how my opponent failed to address this.

" In order to prove that, Pro would need to show that not only is God a prior condition for objective morality, but that God is the ONLY possible prior condition"

I've done this. Refer to "ARGUMENT" in Round 2 and the three pillars in Round 3.

CONCLUSION

I've done this in this round:

A) I've shown how my opponent has vied for a resolutional interpretation that I am ALREADY arguing for.

B) I've shown how my opponent failed to address many of my arguments.

C) I've adequately refuted the few arguments my opponent did address.

D) I've clearly organized my arguments into a Round 2 "ARGUMENT", Round 3 'pillars', and Round 4 'quote and answer's.

I've made it as abundantly clear as possible how I've kept my burden of proof and how my opponent has failed to even mention theirs. My opponent states we have reciprocal burdens of proof, but then doesn't even address my Round 2 and 3 arguments against him. I await my opponent's response, and sincerely hopes he addresses my arguments and upholds his burden of proof. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their response.

Definitions

Pro says"I wasn't attempting to prove anything with this alone; I was simply adopting a definition that would be easier for both sides to work with. Your definition of God fit the Christian God's bill and your capitalization of 'god' implied the Christian god, so I'm using the Christian god as the "God" referenced in the resolution."

I remind Pro that God was defined as "Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover"

Moral Objectivism vs Moral Absolutes

Pro says My opponent, in his opening speech, states that an example of objective morality would be some sort of moral law that is always wrong or right in any situation. These commandments are exactly that, and claim some are wrong in every situation."

I didn't, don't confuse moral absolutes with moral objectivism.

Closing Arguments

I am going to argue that Pro has not provide sufficient warrant to affirm the resolution.

Here are the options regarding the existence of objective morality and the existence of God.

1) God exists, objective morality exists
2) God exists, objective does not exist
3) God does not exist, objective morality does not exist
4) God does not exist, objective morality does exist

As Pro says " it's not my responsibility to prove that God is real, but to prove that IF he was real THEN that is the ONLY way objective morality can exist"

In order to do that, Pro had to show that option 4 was an IMPOSSIBILTY.

As I alluded too before, I could concede options 1,2,3 for the purpose of this debate. Pro has not shown that option 4 is an impossibility, thus its possible that objective morality does exist, even if God does not exist. As long as it even possible that objective morality can exist absent God, the resolution has not being affirmed.

Pro says "My opponent is right here, that alone doesn't prove that God is necessary for objective morality. However, I've shown in round 2 under "ARGUMENT""

Well lets look at Pros round 2 argument. Pro says "The resolution's wording says that there must be a God in order for objective morality to exist. In other words, IF there is a God, then objective morality exists and IF there isn't a God, then objective morality doesn't exist"

I went over this in the previous round. Pro presents 2 options either.........

1) God exists, and thus objective morality exists
2) God does not exist and thus objective morality does not exist

But there is a third option.........3) God does not exist and objective morality does exist.

Once again, I can concede options 1 and 2, but option 3 is still on the table.

Once again, as long as this option is still on the table, the resolution can't be justified.

Vote Con.

I thank Pro for participating in this debate.

In hindsight, I wish I had made the resolution simpler, as there was too much argument on what exactly the resolution was saying and not saying.



Ad_Infinitum

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response. I will cordon off the arguments into the areas my opponent argued in this round, with perhaps some more subsections in the longer material.

DEFINITIONS

On the definition debate, my opponent in the last round quoted me then posted one sentence. This sentence wasn't even a refutation, but a reminder. This reminder was that God is defined as "an existence that is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover". I agreed with this definition and provided a reasonable interpretation that narrowed the definition of God further so that it could be better worked with. It's hard to tell whether my opponent agrees with this or not, but I'll assume he does as he doesn't include any refutation or argument that is relative to this definition being my or his way.

MORAL OBJECTIVISM VS MORAL ABSOLUTES

My opponent, in this section, once again quotes me and posts a singular sentence in refutal. My opponent simply says that he didn't say what he said he did and that I shouldn't confuse moral absolutes with moral objectivism.

I stated that my opponent presented a statement that said he agreed objective morality was a moral law always right or wrong in any situation. One of his statements in Round 1 is "Objective morality means a morality that exists independently of personal belief, that is to say things are right or wrong regardless if any person believes in them or not." This statement clearly agrees with my statement about moral law right or wrong in every situation. It's intuitive that the actions I refer to are human actions, as there is no reason I would be talking about animal or alien actions.

Secondly, my opponent tells me not to confuse moral absolutes with moral objectivism. However, we have no idea why that statement is relevant. I do realize that there is a difference, however there is no clear connection to my argument, because my opponent fails to provide one. There is no reason why that statement has any relevance whatsoever. My opponent is simply making an observation that he failed to make relevant to my arguments. Because he didn't do that, I have no idea how I can adequately refute it, because it's not an argument in the first place. My opponent wasn't at his 8,000 character limit, so there is no excuse as to why he couldn't have connected this statement to my arguments.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS

Here my opponent is arguing that I didn't sufficiently affirm the resolution. Here, I will both show how I did adequately refute the resolution and how my opponent failed to adequately oppose the resolution. If we remember to the first round my opponent stated that Pro will affirm the resolution and Con will oppose, implying reciprocal burdens of proof.

First, my opponent presents some options as to the possibilities of existence involving God and objective morality. He stated that I must show the 4th option to be an IMPOSSIBILITY. I must show that it is IMPOSSIBLE that "If it is not the case God exists, then objective morality does exist." This is the point where my opponent quotes me saying how my entire argument showing option 4 an impossibility was laid out in Round 2 under "ARGUMENT". First, I must note that the ARGUMENT section is NOT located in Round 2, but Round 1. This was my mistake. However, up to the point when I said that, I only had one section entitled ARGUMENT. Let's look at how my opponent refuted ARGUMENT.

Looking to his response, he says we'll look to my Round 2 argument, but does not actually address the ARGUMENT section in Round 1 OR the argument in Round 2. He simply says that he has "went over this" already, when I have clearly shown in Rounds 2, 3, and now 4 that he has failed EVERY ROUND to refute that Round 1 argument entitled ARGUMENT. I would refer the voters back to Round 1 argument where I showed how it was an IMPOSSIBILITY that God could not exist while objective morality did. My opponent completely ignored this every single round.

For the readers to find it, my argument started with the words: "My argument is not a particulary large one, and one that hopefully will seem rather intuitive." My opponent didn't address this argument.

Moving on, my opponent provides two more options as to possibilities of existence.

1) God exists, and thus objective morality does.
2) God does not exist, and thus objective morality does not exist.

He then states there's a 3rd option I hadn't noticed:

3) God does not exist and objective morality does.

He says that he can concede the first two, but that the 3rd option is still on table. I'd like to point out that there is a fourth option: 4) God exists and objective morality doesn't. Now do these "options" look familiar? If they do, it's because my opponent just mentioned them at the beginning of his "CLOSING ARGUMENTS" section. I've shown VERY CLEARLY how objective morality CAN'T exist without God. That God's existence is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for objective morality, and my opponent has simply ignored this.

So as we see, I've clearly upheld my end of the resolution by affirming that the ONLY way objective morality can exist is if God exists, and that objective morality cannot exist without God.

What about the opponent, though? Has he upheld the resolution? If we look to his rounds content, we'll see that much of what he said was reiterating me or refuting some part of one of my arguments. Never did he actually provide an argument that opposed the resolution, only arguments that opposed my arguments. As far as burden of proof goes, my opponent completely failed to uphold it. He presented no reason for us to believe that, without God, objective morality can exist.

VOTERS

1) I have upheld my burden of proof.

2) My opponent did not uphold his burden of proof.

3) Many of my arguments, including my most important argument, went unrefuted.

4) My opponent had no arguments in opposition to the resolution.

5) My opponent continuously avoided an argument I constantly brought up, and never ended up refuting it.

BETTER ARGUMENTS

I should win the better arguments vote because I presented better arguments. The voters justify this statement.

SOURCES

Sources should go to me because I had the only source, brought up in the first round (Merriam-Webster). Some feel, however, that with a resolution like this sources don't matter.

CONDUCT

Conduct should go to me, simply because my opponent ignored an argument every round and even at the end of the debate never got to it.

SPELLING/GRAMMAR

I wasn't very focused on my opponent's grammar or spelling, so I have no opinion as to who the victor of this section should be.

CLOSING REMARKS

I thank my opponent for this debate, although I wish he would have argued all of my arguments and resulted in a better debate. I did learn some, though, from this debate, and that's all that really matter in the end. I look forward to the results. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Objective Morality cannot exist, god or no god.
Objective means that it exists independent of Consciousness, if anything is created by Consciousness, then it becomes Subjective automatically.
A Conscious God Creates Morality: Then that Morality is created by Consciousness, thus the Morality is entirely Subjective.
All Moral rules were created by conscious entities, thus all Moral rules are Subjective by definition.
Inanimate and Objective Objects do not exhibit Morality, thus morality is not Objective.
Posted by mecap 5 years ago
mecap
spelling error "...but that they're* (again) mutually exclusive"
Posted by mecap 5 years ago
mecap
"You are proving objective morality via human opinion which is explicitly stated as irrelevant within objective morality?"
-- I'm not proving objective morality, rather, I'm proving that objective morality and God are mutually exclusive. Additionally, I don't claim that objective morality or God exists, but that their (again) mutually exclusive, therefore only one can exist.
Posted by Ad_Infinitum 5 years ago
Ad_Infinitum
"It is basically The Golden Rule, which is generally recognized to be an objective moral standard:"

Generally recognized? Is that a human opinion? You are proving objective morality via human opinion which is explicitly stated as irrelevant within objective morality?
Posted by mecap 5 years ago
mecap
When I say Con didn't address this, I mean that Con didn't mention it, so I'm not harping on Pro for not covering that argument in the debate.
Posted by mecap 5 years ago
mecap
Con didn't address this, but Matthew 7:12 says:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (KJV)

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (NIV)

It is basically The Golden Rule, which is generally recognized to be an objective moral standard:
1. http://www.theologyweb.com...
2. http://www.icr.org...

The Bible states that The Golden Rule summarizes the Law and the Prophets, and if the Law is God's objective morality, then Matthew 7:12 essentially contradicts the idea that objective morality exists because of God. The Golden Rule rests upon the assumption that we can reasonably imagine how we would feel if we were in the position of the other entity which is subject to our action. To be specific- God has objective moral standards that concern him/her, such as: not to worship other gods, but it would be impossible to apply the Golden Rule when it come to morals concerning God because we can't reasonably comprehend what it is to be God and thus we can't reasonably comprehend how we would feel about people worshiping other gods if we were in God's shoes.

So given that:
1. The Golden Rule is accepted as an objective moral standard (as shown in the sources above).
2. The Golden Rule existed before Christianity (Conscious, et al).
3. The Golden Rule is said to sum up the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12).
4. The Golden Rule contradicts God's law since it can't be reasonably applied to morals towards God (i.e. not to worship other gods).

We have to conclude that objective morality would be inapplicable if God exists, therefore either God doesn't exist or objective morality doesn't exist.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
It is not the existence of god, but rather the reminder that he exists, that is necessary for objective morality to exist.
This is just my view.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
IllegalcombatantAd_InfinitumTied
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: Pro held his bop and refuted the argument from con. Oh, con mixed up the pro and con as well
Vote Placed by mecap 5 years ago
mecap
IllegalcombatantAd_InfinitumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove that God is a necessary precondition for objective morality.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IllegalcombatantAd_InfinitumTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ``So my opponent claims that there exist principles of human nature independent of humans themselves. `` - yes and this was never refuted, though a lot of scattered side arguments were made. This can be refuted but it ends up redefining what objective means, see Harris for example 1 pt to Pro.