The Instigator
claw091
Con (against)
The Contender
primeministerJoshua812
Pro (for)

Any Religious topic (preferably from a theist)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
claw091 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 770 times Debate No: 116119
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)

 

claw091

Con

I would like for a theist to present a religious topic to discuss. I'm pretty open to possibly any topic as long as it is relevant and that both parties have sufficient knowledge to discuss it.

A little background to help the opposing side choose a topic: I am an atheist who used to be a muslim and also a reasonable amount of knowledge in Christianity. In terms of morality, i tend to stand with Moral Nihilism and my life philosophy is Optimistic Nihilism.

The 1st round will be my introduction and for the challenger to declare the topic and describe his/her position. Rounds 2-4 will be discussion/rebuttals/arguments/etc. (This isn't extremely formal. Treat it like a dinner discussion.) Round 5 will be a mixture of closing rebuttals and closing statements.
primeministerJoshua812

Pro

We will be debating the Moral argument for the existence of God.

The argument goes like this

P1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

Now one might consider this argument to be a non-sequitur but I will show why it is not. Now the premises I have laid here are the traditional premises usually brought up by apologists as Dr. William Lane Craig but for the purposes of simplicity, I would like to change up the premise wording using the format presented by Michael Jones of InspiringPhilosophy in his video on the topic we are discussing of course with a little word changing. I'll put the link to that video here:

Okay so.

P1. Morality is a rational enterprise
P2. Moral Realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist
P3. Moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume that moral realism is grounded
in a human source of rationality.
P4. Premises 1, 2, and 3 confirm that Moral realism is grounded in a source of necessity (Refer to this video on the
Contingency argument for further explanation: ).
P5. The source of necessity is what we call God (refer to video in Premise four)
Con. Therefore, God exists.

Is P1 sound? Yes, it is because Morality is deciphered through reason and logic. Just like mathematics and philosophical positions. We know that Morality cannot be based on naturalistic principles because you won't get moral and ethical truths through empirical testings. If someone is about to hurt someone else we cannot know how we ought to act. We can only reason that we do not act in a certain way. Confirming our first Premise. If the debate reaches that point I will address those who object to this aka those who support to non-cognitivism. Is the second premise sound? Yes, it is and hears why. Now before I defend Moral realism I would like to define Moral realism. Moral realism defined is summed up like this

Moral realism is true even if no one believes it just like the laws of logic or the laws of physics. Moral realism is independent of Human Cognition but we can tap into moral realism using our cognition. Doing this will help us better operate in reality.

Okay so Moral Realism defended: I am going to put a video for you to watch because I will not have enough typing space to type down all the arguments form Moral realism and so:

So what about P3. Is it sound? Yes, it is we cannot be the source of moral knowledge because we are not perfect beings and Hitler is a great example. We also do not know fully about moral facts. We fail to perform moral duties. We are also contingent beings (refer to Contingency argument for further explanation). For example, we discovered the laws of logic and mathematics but we did not make them. 2+2=4 even if no human exists. P3 follows logically from P1 and 2. Becuase we are contingent and fail to follow moral laws. Logical deduction shows us that P1 and 2 confirm that morality must be grounded in a necessary and rational source. The source must also be sentient. P4 is therefore confirmed. So the basis for morality must be A conscious rational necessary entity who would serve as the foundation for morality and whom we would like to for moral guidance. Logical deduction leads us to P5. If Moral Realism is true then the source for Morality is God simply using logical deduction we can confirm this. So what about the Conclusion is it sound? Yes the Ontology of Moral Realism (Ontology being the metaphysical study of the nature of being) grounds morality in a conscious rational necessary entity to whom the title of God is given (see the ontological argument for more info: )

Let me give you an example when Chemist discovered that water was H2O they didn't merely stipulate that one was the other but rather they discovered that the terms mean the same thing. You see Good=God and God=Good. Moralism realism must be ground in unchanging beings and this is important as it shows that the moral argument can only be used to defend the existence of a Monotheistic God who is omniscience, omnipotent and omnipresent.

My final statement is based on whether morality comes from evolution. This most likely didn't happen and even if it did it does not disprove moral realism. The moral argument is about the foundation for moral values and duties not how we came to k ow those truths. Moral epistemology deals with how we came to know moral values. As Dr. Frank Turek argues

Moral laws are not chemical or biological: they are immaterial and come from personal agents. Chemistry and Biology are descriptive, not prescriptive; evolution describes what does survive, not what ought to survive. He preceded to give an example of rape and murder and how evolution would see moral changes in the name of human survival. If P2 of the Moral argument is sound than evolution can't account for morality.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
Also, your article could use a lesson of Metaethics.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
Okay, so I read some well worded but missing the point nonsense. Please list specific objections to my theodicy and if you would like I can address the probability version of the problem of suffering and evil. A lot came about concerning free will and I addressed that in the logical problem.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
What? Why does Omnipotency contradict being the first cause? I explained how the existence of suffering does not disprove God refer to my argument.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
God itself is constrained by the laws of logic and rationality - it can't make a square circle or create an object that it can't destroy. Most people cede that "omnipotent" means only the ability to do any logical thing. Indeed, in order to create anything at all then you must first be able to think rationally, in an ordered way, and therefore, to be subject to logical cause-and-effect. Therefore, omnipotent beings can't be the creators of the fundamental laws. Omnipotency contradicts being the "first cause" of all reality. And if an all-powerful being created pain, suffering, the cycle of life (wherein most living beings must kill and eat other beings to survive) whilst it has the all-powerful ability to create eternal happiness for everyone, then, such a being cannot be benevolent (morally good). Millennia of theological and philosophical debate has not resulted in these contradictions being resolved.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
canis

I challenge you to debate on whether Moral Realism exists. I shall instigate a new debate. Wait.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
missmedic. I will be arguing against's Epicurus' argument which goes like this.

If God is willing to prevent evil but not able than he is not all powerful
If he is able but not willing than he is not good
but if he is both able and willing, how can evil exist?
If he is neither able nor willing, why call him God?

In other words. the argument can be summed up in three premises

P1. It is logically impossible for God and suffering to coexist
P2. We Know fully well that suffering exists
Con. Therefore, God does not exist.

The first statement is not sound. First, we must as the question is there any explicit contradictions between the statements that an all powerful, all loving God exist and that suffering exist. Well, the answer is no. An example of a contractionary statement is that David is married but also a bachelor. The purpose of the two statements contradicts and thus are inconsistent with logic. So here is the problem with the first premise. It suggests that God as an all-powerful being can create any world he wants and that as an all-loving being God prefers a world without suffering. Is this true? Can God create any world he wants? What if he wants to create a world where people have free will. You can't force someone to freely choose to do something good or evil. Forcing free chooses is like making a square circle. It's nonsense. It is not that God lacks the power to do so but that God operates within the Laws of Logic. So the first assumption is not true. What about the second assumption. Well, how could we possibly know this? We all know of cases were suffering lead to a long-term benefit. If it is even possible for God to have reason to do this then the second premise is not necessarily true. For someone to use this argument to disprove God, they would have to show that it is logically impossible for free will to exist and that God has no good reason to permit suffering.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
missmedic

Okay, so time to address The Euthyphro Dilemma: The Creator of Morality Cannot Itself Be Moral. Then if you would like we can discuss the problem of suffering and evil.

So is something good because God says it is good? Or does God say something is good because it is good? The question no matter what answer attempts to set up a dichotomy for the theist with unfavourable outcomes. If the moral argument is to survive it must answer these two questions. The problem with this objection is evident if you study extended premise which I have presented. We are not arbitrary cementing moral realism in God because we don't have. Using Moral ontology and the Socratic method we can confirm P1,2,3 which confirms P4 as the source of morality is unchanging, necessary (like the laws of logic and mathematics) and conscious. The best explanation for this is a omniscience being who can give us moral guidance aka and thus is omnipotent. That being can only be God and a monotheistic one at that. (refer to the ontological argument). The title of God is what we give to this source because by its Moral ontology it would be worthy of worship and praise. Your objection shows me that you have a semantic disorder of the argument as I have addressed this many times before. In summary, I am arguing that moral realism exist and that it is grounded in a rational, unchanging, necessary and sentient source who is all powerful and all knowing and that source is what I call God. I am not saying that God is the grounding for morality.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
We will be debating the Moral argument for the existence of God.

The argument goes like this

P1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist..... So they do not
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist....No they do not
P3. Therefore, God exists.....Only if you create one or several

Now one might consider this argument to be a non-sequitur but I will show why it is not. Now the premises I have laid here are the traditional premises usually brought up by apologists as Dr. William Lane Craig but for the purposes of simplicity, I would like to change up the premise wording using the format presented by Michael Jones of InspiringPhilosophy in his video on the topic we are discussing of course with a little word changing. I'll put the link to that video here: https://www.youtube.com......

Okay so.

P1. Morality is a rational enterprise..... yes and no. Or just an emotional enterprice.
P2. Moral Realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist....No they do not.
P3. Moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume that moral realism is grounded
in a human source of rationality.... No it shows people are different.
P4. Premises 1, 2, and 3 confirm that Moral realism is grounded in a source of necessity (Refer to this video on the......The necessity is us.
Contingency argument for further explanation: https://www.youtube.com...... ).
P5. The source of necessity is what we call God (refer to video in Premise four).... No us
Con. Therefore, God exists....No. Therefore we exist.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Your premise is based on contradictory and unfounded conclusions," it must be a conscious being , and it must be god , and it must be my god". if God's actions and wishes are automatically good by definition, then its morality is arbitrary and we ourselves have no moral reason to follow it, and may do so only out of fear of the consequences or of selfish want of reward. If God's actions are not by definition good, then, there must be an independent source of the definition of goodness. If God has always been good then God can't have been the creator of goodness; yet if it wasn't, then what was? The idea of a good god causes contradictions. If you do not accept purely logical, philosophical or theological arguments that god cannot be benevolent, then, the real-world existence of evil and suffering (of babies, etc) is also evidence that the world was not created by a perfectly good god. This leads back to reason being the source of our moral understanding, as reason does not contradict.
http://www.vexen.co.uk...
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.