The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

God is Necessary for Objective Morality

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,068 times Debate No: 40238
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




This debate will be over whether God is necessary for objective morality. I will be arguing that God is not necessary for objective morality to exist.

The first round is for acceptance and definitions only.


Objective Morality: The idea that notions of "right" and "wrong" (i.e., moral judgments) can be universal and fixed, regardless of their context (e.g., temporal setting.)
(If the opponent disagrees with this definition, it can discussed further in the comments... and possibly revised. Otherwise, it will stand.)

I will be arguing that God is necessary for objective morality--or, in other words, an objective morality cannot exist without an existing God.

I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


For the purposes of this debate, I will assume that an objective morality exists. When we usually think about right and wrong, we usually think about a situation and deduce from that situation what is acceptable and what is not. In every moral dilemma we have people, objects, and possible actions. It is our jobs to determine which actions are right given these people and objects. If objective morality exists, then if you were all knowing you could deduce from every situation what is morally right and what is morally wrong.

This occurs in the same way that correct politics follows from a situation and the way that we can determine what is going to happen in physics problems. The real world works a certain way, and from those logical relationships truth arises and can be determined. So if objective morality exists, it exists logically from the situations involving people and their problems. All truths about things arises from the logical relationships between those things. For example 2 + 2 = 4 arises from the relationship of 2 to 2 through the idea of adding. For this reason I see morality based on the innate nature and inter-relationships between people and objects in this world.

For God to be necessary for the existence of morality, then he had to create it. But then the real question is, when God for example was creating the fact that murder is wrong, what basis did he use to compute his position? If there was no logical basis that makes sense, then morality was created arbitrarily. If morality was created arbitrarily, then why do I or anyone else have to follow it?

If God based his decision to make murder wrong on some logical fact then it is that fact that is really responsible.


I don’t know why my opponent is “assuming” that objective morality exists “for the purposes of this debate”… This premise was not established in the first round or in the resolution.

Contrary to what my opponent has argued, moral facts cannot be derived from "logical relationships" of the nature that he has described. Unlike statements such as "1+1=2," moral facts are about what ought to be--not just about what is. Surely, various cultures and individuals can define how morality "ought to be" orchestrated in the context of their own behavior and in the context of their social communities, but how can any moral fact be viewed through an "objective" (or universal) scope? No individual or society can create extrinsic rules that act upon all of humanity; in order to have a moral system without boundaries that exists outside of (subjective) human consciousness, we would need a rule-maker with complete dominion over the universe.

Moreover, to expand on the idea of "subjective human consciousness," we cannot derive specific moral facts from human nature, because they vary from individual to individual and from society to society. While we can see broad trends, we can also see very heavy variation, as we move from one moral outlook to the next. We always see questions about the morality of abortion or the consumption of animals, and different moral perspectives are taken to justify different stances--and the premises of these perspectives (e.g., Murder is immoral) can be just as easily contested; indeed, the morality of a serial killer is an example of a human sense of morality, though an uncommon one.

Debate Round No. 2


Dan4reason forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Dan4reason forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 5 years ago
Murder, or 'killing' is neither right nor wrong. Every single thing that exists in this world is neutral.

God determines now when these neutral things are right or wrong, no human can determine this.

For example, killing.

Killing is wrong if you kill an innocent, but killing is not wrong when you are defending yourself from potentially getting your own life taken away. You see now?

God created a neutral world, nothing is evil nor good, until you change its perspective, and this perspective is determined by God and God alone.

In order for objective moralities to exist, a God MUST exist. What is stopping me from killing that little girl in the street, what's so wrong about it?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrVan 5 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments still stand because of Con forfeiting, therefor Con loses both conduct and arguments. Pro also presented his case in a way that was more coherent and easy to follow, so he also wins grammar/spelling.