There Is A Moral Proof Of God!
Debate Rounds (5)
Let me tell you about Kant's Moral Proof of God.
It so entails that:
1. If morality is objective, then there is a God.
2. Morality is objective
3. There is a God
Let us start by proving the first premise: that if morals were objective they would come from God. Firstly we understand that if morals are objective then they would surpass the boundaries of time and space, therefore their source would have to transcend the boundaries of time and space: such an identity can be God alone. Also let us understand that absolute morals would entail an absolute identity behind them: that identity would be God. A second argument for this will be fitted in the explanation of the next premise.
Now on to the second premise: morals are objective. Before giving the philosophical argument I believe this premise can be understood through common sense. In a strict sense we already believe that there are certain absolute morals. However our opponent would contest that no morals are absolute, lest he except that there is a God. So our opponent must show when it is moral to rape a 5 year old girl, he must show when it is all right to murder a child, delineate to us when it may be justifiable to genocide. For if there is anything which is an absolute moral it would prove God. However let us give the philosophical proof. We urge our opponent to read David Hume so not to make the mistake of thinking that which "is" is that which "ought". For if he thinks this he is making a claim, which he must defend with an argument. Let us though come back to the premise. The first argument is that the goal of morals is summum bonum. In simpler words the goal of morals is to make a person so, that happiness arises out of virtue, for only then there is justice. That when you do a good thing you are happy to do good. One does goodness for goodness' sake. Now no man can ensure that this happens. No one but God can ensure that if, let us say, I am acting moral then I achieve the summum bonum, this can only be given to me by God. Only God can allow infinite justice, can reward me so that my happiness stems from virtue. The second argument is that we cannot construct morals. If you try to understand the current "is" of morals then it is deeply connected to some previous morals. I contest that man other than empirical knowledge has only innate knowledge, and this knowledge of morality is innate. The idea of virtue is innate so it must be that not only does a soul exist, but it carries the algorithms of absolute morals. As for how we come to the modern morals it is through imagination. Imagination if viewed rationally has its bases in the "dying view of reality". All of our modern moral constructs stem from some original, absolute morals. I believe I have sufficiently shown that morals are indeed absolute. If they are not let our opponent first show when it is all right to rape a 5 year old, and then give a logical counter argument, or point out a fallacy.
Now that we have shown that absolute morals would prove a God, and that morals are absolute, ergo God exists.
As for whether it was my God (Allah), Yahweh, Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna, that is a separate matter, the debate was meant to argue the existence of God: the existence is sufficiently proven.
PS. A larger explanation, argument is provided by me here (this is not included in the argument you only have to refute that mentioned above, only that will be considered) : https://beaconhouse.academia.edu...
My first premise was that if there are absolute morals there will be a God. We show this firstly through the summum bonum and how only God can give us summum bonum (the highest good) and that is that happiness arises out of virtue. Secondly objective morals would entail that they transcend space and time, God by definition transcends space and time, so only He could have given us morals. I beg of my honourable opponent that he not commit the "is-ought" mistake, though I am sure he is well versed it in all ready.
Sir my second and most important premise is that morals are absolute. For this I give a number of arguments, firstly I assert that morality cannot be realized from empirical means. Here (as in the essay) I would like to clarify that there is a difference between moral and good. Good entails that which was most productive, morality is based purely on intention. It is shown this way that if your 6 year old relative spent all day making something for you, but burnt the dish he would not be an immoral person. He would most certainly be a bad cook, but not an immoral one. Since intention cannot be empirically gauged morality is above empirical scrutiny. It is a fact of philosophy that if our knowledge of something is not empirical then its bases must be innate. If it is innate then it must be absolute for innate dreams come from the Soul. The fact that in the modern world we have come to different beliefs is due to imagination (see philosophical meaning). As the proposition I have the right to define terms, you may challenge them but as soon as you give an alternative the onus probandi will fall on you.
I do not wish to reiterate and I cannot refute for you have not posted anything, so I will attempt to give an example.
Sir, it is so that man in his years has envisioned aliens or the ever popular Pokemon series for kids. Is it not that they resemble our animals? It is simply a mix up: the reason remains that man has limited means to gain knowledge.
And the questions remain tell me if morality is subjective then when is moral to rape a 5 year old, murder a child and/or when it is justifiable to commit genocide. Could the holocaust where hundreds of anti-Arians were killed, tortured, raped, in any way moral? In fact you already have certain morals, certain guidelines which you accept as absolute. The opponent must, at pain of loosing, show how is it that there are no absolute morals. The onus upon me is to show that there is an absolute moral. I have told you the system, and given examples.
It is now to him, good luck sir!
So, if I'm correct, burden of proof is on Pro, right?
In that case, I feel he has failed to fulfill it.
My opponent's arguments are unsound and can almost be considered baseless assertions. He has done nothing to defend his premises, has provided no sources, and has not provided any proof that morals came from God. There is almost nothing to refute.
Rebuttal to premise 1
My opponent is only saying that if there are morals, they must be objective and they must come from God. However, he hasn't done anything to defend this and doesn't make a strong argument for God or the existence of completely objective morals. I could say that morals were a human conception that evolved over time to give us the laws and morals hammered into us by society today. This alternative seems much more plausible than assuming that since morals exist, that there's a god behind them with no evidence to back it up.
Rebuttal to premise 2
Again, my opponent has not yet proven that morals are objective, and that they come from a god. Therefore, logically following from the last rebuttal, this point is rendered moot.
I am not making a counter argument, seeing as there is seemingly no argument to counter. They appear to be baseless assertions.
No offense, but my opponent's arguments do not hold any water. They are assertions based entirely on the premise that if morals exist, God exists, without any evidence or cited sources to back them up. My opponent has not shown that morals are absolute, objective, or come from a God and I await his response to show otherwise.
He then increases his font size so it looks as if he actually did write something.
I shall start by refuting his childish refutations:
1. This debate would not do well with great many sources, as it is philosophical; if my opponent wants sources then here:
 The Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant
 Theodice by Leibniz
 Kantian Ethics by Allen W. Wood
I think the person credited for revolutionizing the philosophical world, and the physical for this essays natural science, would not give an argument which was "baseless". But that is an appeal to authority from my side, let me show to you logically how my opponent has not refuted my claims.
2. I said that if they are objective morals then there is a God. I do not need to prove a God to prove this premise, this premise aims to prove God. Secondly only God can transcend time and space, and absolute morals transcend time and space, only God could provide absolute morals. Not to mention only God could fulfil the summum bonum (did you honestly read the argument). Also my argument about innate dreams was not refuted by you.
3. There is so much I said about how morals are absolute and you simply make a claim? I spoke about innate dreams, and moral ontology and you simply give me a two line answer, one which does not point out one logical error, but rather simply states that I did not prove anything.
4. He did not lay down a counter argument,
5. Here are the sources (mentioned above), though I believe this essay might reinforce the idea from my perspective ( I wrote it): https://beaconhouse.academia.edu...
For the reason that the refutations did not engage my arguments, and the fact I think my opponent will forfeit, I have not written much. However my original arguments stand, and I hope my opponent provides a better argument next time 'round.
Hitchens' Razor applies here: "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Also, my opponent stated that the counter argument was an option.
But for the sake of argument, I will present one known as the Euthyphro Dilemma:
If "God" commands the good, because it is good, it implies that the objective standard for what is good does not rest in "God", but in "good" itself, or some other external standard or "good".
If on the other hand, a good is good because "God" merely declares it so, then "good" is arbitrary, and subjective (to "God") rather than objective. This understanding of good is called Divine Command Theory " where good is whatever God says is good. This is problematic for believers because if "God" were to decree that murder and theft are good, would that make it so? Most Christians are reluctant to go down this slippery slope. It also becomes problematic to refer to "God" as a good god, if good is whatever "God" willed on a whim. The term "good" thus loses any real meaning.
Therefore, morals cannot be objective.
Allow me to first address the issues:
1. I do say that the fact that morals are objective should be understood by common sense but I also give a logical argument, which I copied off of Immanuel Kant so it cannot be completely illogical. I presented sources if my opponent had any problems, I gave the link to an essay within which I clear my point of summum bonum, and moral ontology. I ask the readers to look at my above arguments.
Now let us deal with this counter argument that has been presented:
Euthyphro's Dilemma was presented to us by Plato, the most simplest solution is that morality comes from one God, not many. The reason Euthyphro was put into such a mess was because he could not answer what would happen if some gods favoured something and others did not favour it. God is by definition omni-benevolent, the opposite being Satan. Secondly the fact that you find murder or thievery bad is because of God, and how you have an innate sense of virtue.
The fact that I did not write a long argument is because I am incredibly sick, and was hospitalized for most of the night. I only did write this because it would be rude to my opponent to quit in between.
And I was playing devil's advocate here; I don't believe it's moral to rape a child and I believe morals are objective from God.
I will skip this, because you skipped a round for me.
Thank you once more :)
Pitbull15 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.