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

If God does not exist, then there is no moral law.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
felixmendelssohn has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 558 times Debate No: 116271
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)




The topic of whether God is a necessary foundation for morality and justice has been topic of every religious debate. Christians often points to the usefulness of God as a foundation for freewill and justice. I am, however, convinced that nature and logical laws are enough to justified moral instincts.

Round 1: acceptance
Round 2,3,4: pro and con responds to each other arguments.


God in nature, Spinoza favored this idea and the rabbis placed him into charem/excommunication. God in nature goes by the name of Pantheism. Naturally as a Jew who desires to live in harmony with my people I can never support the philosophic idea of pantheism. I am not an expert upon Spinoza, but I suspect that the logic system which he favored based itself upon Aristotle, syllogistic deduction. This system stands opposed to the Hebrew logic system called "middot".

The term justice, by the way i learn the Torah, it means "intra-bnai brit diplomacy". Intra stands as the opposite of inter. For example intra-state commerce as opposed to inter-state commerce; exchange of goods and services within one of the 50 States of the Union as opposed to exchange of goods and services with other States of the Union. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution permits the Federal Government to regulate inter-state trade, but not intra-state trade.

Moral instincts ... the Torah defines the term prophet as a person who commands Musar. Jewish ethical, educational and cultural movement. The Hebrew term Musar, bases itself upon the book of Proverbs 1:2 meaning moral conduct, instruction or discipline. Hence, b/c all generations require Musar prophet command Mussar commandments. When a person studies T'NaCH [Torah, Prophets, Writings], the question of his minds' eye: What Mussar instruction does this sub chapter teach. A sub chapter goes by the name Sugia in Hebrew. The Hebrew T'NaCH has no Chapters and Verse as does the Xtian Bible translations.

The foundation upon which stands all logic systems, and many different types of logic systems has humanity developed. The ancient Greeks had their philosophers, the most famous being Plato and Aristotle, who developed ancient Greek logic. Logic comes under the heading of philosophy. In the 19th century the German philosopher Hegel developed a bi-polar logic system which he called dialectics. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai did not limit itself to the "revelation" of law; this error the religion of Xtianity made in great abundance.

The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev/Sinai occurred 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf on the Yom Tov/festival of Yom Kippor/the Day of Atonement. The mussar instruction of Yom Kippor, if Jews interpret the Written Torah employing the middot logic system which Moshe the prophet Orally Heard on Yom Kippor ... then the God of Israel shall atone for the Jewish people when we profane the oath brit to keep the commandments which Moshe the prophet commanded Israel.

Israel when it stood at Sinai to receive the Torah could only hear the opening 2 commandments before they feared if they heard more that they would die. Moshe the prophet commanded in all - 611 commandments, not the 8 commandments which the Xtian theologians call "the 10 commandments". The commandment to build the Tabernacle of the Congregation exists as a commandment Israel received from the prophet just as did the commandment not to do work Israel received from the prophet. The order of 2 - 8 = 10 commandments teaches a logic of Primary/secondary. The first 2 commandments exist as the Primary commandments Israel received directly from God.

The first commandment the revelation of the Name. The Xtian bible and koran never once bring this Name b/c they worship other Gods. Aaron placed the Name upon gold and cast it into the fire: [Its not the reading of the Torah which requires wisdom as much as the interpretation of what a person reads that requires wisdom]. What mussar instruction does the Torah revelation of Sinai teach through the sin of the golden calf? [Torah teaches spirituality not history].

Translating the 4 letter Name into another word, herein defines foreign worship which the Torah commandments explicitly forbid. Both the new testament bible and koran translate the Name unto other words. This sin of the golden calf violates the 2nd commandment of Sinai. By this logic neither the Xtians [catholic protestant or any other sect, Mormons ect] nor Muslims [sunni or shiite] worship the God who brought Israel out of Egypt. Therefore by definition these religions worship other strange Gods. Gods who did not command Moshe the prophet to command in the Name of the God of Sinai for Israel to obey these additional commandments; commandment subservient to the first two opening commandments received at Sinai.

This logical refutation of both the Xtian bible and the Muslim koran stands distinct and totally separate from the logic system developed by either Plato or Aristotle which both the Church and Muslim religions emphatically and fervently embraced during the Middle Ages. For example, employing the Primary/secondary logical system, consider the commandment of the prophet which forbids Israel to do work on shabbot.

Torah middot logic reaches completely independent understanding how to interpret the meaning and intent of this commandment. The Talmud [a post 2nd Temple legal compilation of Jewish Common Law], asks: What does the meaning of the commandment "do not do work" mean? Oral Torah logic reached the conclusion that this commandment excluded all work required to build the Tabernacle of the Congregation. Torah logic learns by way of reaching a deductive conclusion and making an inductive inference from the deductive conclusion. The term shalom and shabbot go together.

Shalom implies an alliance of trust made between people. The deduction of the commandment forbidding work, limited itself to construction of none human structures. Therefore the commandment from the prophet 'do not work on shabbot" includes the inductive inference "do work to make shalom among and between the brit allies". For example: for a married couple to remain married in "shalom", maintaining this relationship does not require work? Of course working on human relationships requires work! The Talmudic deduction which limited work to "construction of structures", by logical inference did not include the work to build stable human friendships and alliances!

The Xtians and Muslims, both claim to exist as "sister religions" to Judaism, in contrast defined the commandment made by Moshe the prophet of "do not work", as make the holy day of Shabbot a day of rest. Therefore the Xtian understood this holy day of rest as could mean Sunday whereas the Muslims defined this day of rest as being Friday! Torah logic by contrast defined Holy as that which once dedicated to God something else could not substitute or replace the holy dedicated to God. If Shabbot has a holy dedication - not to do work - then its forbidden to replace some other day in place of Shabbot - not to do work.

Let me bring another example which compares to Shabbot, the concept of Moshiach/messiah/christ. Messiah - an English translation; christ - a Greek translation of the concept of Moshiach - the original Hebrew. Translating complex ideas into other words presents great difficulties. For example: the word brit in Hebrew, Xtians and Muslims translate as Covenant. But does the translation define the meaning of the word brit? Of course not, no translation can define the term originally translated. Consider another translation: brit -- alliance. The stories of Avraham and Avimelech, Yaacov and Levan, tells of both parties cutting a brit/alliance. To accomplish a brit alliance requires swearing a Torah oath. Levan [the father of Yaacov's wives], did not swear a Torah oath in the Name of the God of Israel but rather in the name of his Gods. Bil'am a descendant of Levan profaned the oath sworn between Yaacov and Levan!

Consider the idea of the commandment of Sinai - not to swear a false oath. What example does the Torah offer of people swearing false oaths? The floods which killed all mankind in the days of Noach! The Torah places great importance in matters of swearing a Torah oath. The translation of brit into covenant fails to convey the urgency of importance of allies cutting an oath brit. Furthermore, an alliance of shalom requires clearly defined terms. In Shabbot, for example, the terms of holy shabbot, do not do work in matters of constructing objects but yes do work to maintain shalom between allies. Do this commandment on shabbot and not Sunday or Friday!

Moshe, the Torah refers to him as the humblest of all men. What interpretation does logic make from this Torah deduction? Moshe stood in the place of King and chose to anoint/mushach his bother Aaron as the Head of the House of Israel ie the Cohen Ha'Gadol or High Priest. What terms define this Moshiach of Aaron and his house? Aaron must do the service to HaShem in a tohor condition. What does tohor mean? The very precondition of service to HaShem both the bible translations and koran totally ignore! Imagine that!!! Tohor learns from the order of logic which Moshe the prophet received at Horev/Sinai 40 days after the golden calf on Yom Kippor. Service to HaShem requires that Israel dedicates as holy to God these middot/attributes of logic. The Church and the Mosque do not know this system of logic.

The church embraced the error which the Levite Korach rebelled against both Moshe as prophet and Aaron as the holy anointed/dedicated/Moshiach of the Jewish people for all generations. Just as changing one day for another for Shabbot the Torah forbids b/c Shabbot has a holiness that no other day can exchange, so too Moshiach of the house of Aaron no other Moshiach can replace. What then the House of David. David too has an anointed holy Moshiach status. David stands in the place of Moshe the law giver of commandments. The anointing of David as "moshiach" no more replaced the house of Aaron as Moshiach than did the anointing of Penchas replaced the son of Aaron as Cohon Ha'Gadol/High Pries
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
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
@dukeofpanda, you have a valid point but there are only three rounds in this debate, so i chose to present my opening argument.
Posted by dukeofpanda 3 years ago
Pro should carefully read the rules and stipulations of the debate. Round 1 was merely for acceptance.

By prematurely offering your argument you have committed two errors.

1) revealed to the con and any potential judges your inability to accurately comprehend the matter at hand

2) relinquished the ability to gauge your opponents argument in order to choose the most suitable method of attack and potentially redefine the terms of the argument to suit your stance.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
I am not 17 years old, but did not want to post my age.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
you said you were 17?
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
15 years of solitary research ? no wonder you seemed to
define some of your vocab
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Again accept my apology for not knowing how to communicate with greater clarity. I have thrown on you a body of research going on more than 15 years.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
No its original research.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
true. but your theory stands strong and firm because it is practically impenetrable by a critical outsider
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
not to sound offensive but this looks like a paragraph from a random book
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Your point - well spoken. I am sorry. I do not know how to communicate these complex ideas with greater simplicity. Herein distinguishes a genius from a common man. The genius knows how to communicate in a manner which the common man understands.
This debate has 2 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.