The Instigator
TylerHilgeman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
backwardseden
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Moral Argument for God

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2020 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 305 times Debate No: 125919
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

TylerHilgeman

Pro

This is the second take at this debate. The first one was accepted by a user and then abandoned.

In this debate, I will show that objective moral values do exist and therefore God exists. Pieces of this argument will be taken from an essay I wrote: The Moral Argument for a God- https://www. Themusenetwork. Org/post/the-moral-argument

Here it is in its simplest form:
The Moral Argument is simply an argument for a monotheistic god and not any specific one. Basically, This argument states there are objective moral values, And that these objective moral values can only be founded within a personal being. Here is how it goes:

1. If objective moral values exist, Then a supreme being must be the standard for the objective moral values.
Side Note: A "supreme being" is a personal being that defines all personable things.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, A supreme being must be the standard for objective moral values.

So that there is no confusion as to what I mean by "moral, " here is the definition from Merriam Webster: "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. "

I am not going to defend my premises until I know what my opponent views are on this subject--so that I can personalize my argument to him/her. I think that this method will allow for a more efficient debate.

Lastly, Whoever decides to take up my challenge, Be mindful to keep your emotions out of it and only use logic to defend and present defeaters within the debate.
backwardseden

Con

This just happened on Sundays Atheist Experience (two days ago) to completely shatter everything you believe about your unproven storybook character god of print only. It's great viewing.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=wei3nfGq-I8 - The Atheist Experience 24. 31 with Matt Dillahunty & Shannon Q
At the hour mark, There's a call on morality. Pay close attention at the 1:11:00 mark with Shannon Q. There's also a call begins at the 16:30 mark. Then it leads into a very shot call at the 39:30 mark. Then at the 43:30 mark is another good one where atheists -always- win, No exceptions, None, Because slavery is -always- completely and totally morally wrong and bankrupt in which case your unproven storybook character god of print only not only approved of it throughout your idiot bible but never did anything about it to correct it.

* You fully understand that everybody's definition of morality is different - correct?
* You do fully understand that in no possible way does a god give the definition of morality - correct?
Since this is true this does not prove that a god from any religion exists, You fully understand this - correct?
* Um no, I'm not going to agree with your slobber and neither are billions of people on this planet. You do fully understand this - correct?
To prove it, Go to 20 different churches within a 20 mile radius and you show them everything you've got (provided that they are willing to read it) with you saying nothing except for "will you please read this" and you cannot have any lead-ins like "and I'm wondering if you agree with it" notions. 1 billion to 1 there will be no consensus. Care to make a wager on that?
* You do fully understand that I nor anyone who has ever lived needs, Requires, A god to be moral - correct?
* You do fully realize that in no possible way can you prove that your unproven storybook character god even exists - correct?
* Why only one god? Why not thousands, Millions, Billions, Trillions, Quadrillions of gods?
Or the very best bet is why not any god(s) since you have no evidence whatsoever to prove your claims that any god exists?
* The fact that your unproven god requires our faith in which case it would already know if anyone is going to give that faith to it or not is completely bankrupt and immoral especially with the "believe in me or else" superior ego god complex in which case your bible is about and nothing else.

In order for you to believe in your unproven god you MUST
* believe that genocide is a good thing
* believe murdering babies and children is a good thing
* believe murdering pregnant mothers is a good thing - so in order for you to believe in your unproven god abortions are a good thing unless you go against your unproven god which would thus be a tad bit contradictory and hypocritical. Actually, All the way contradictory and hypocritical.
* believe that hating women is a good thing
* believe that rape is a good thing
* believe that slavery is a good thing
* believe that blaspheme warrants death
* being gay warrants death
* believe that adultery warrants death
* believe that not believing in your god warrants death
* believe that cursing at your parents warrants death
* believe that working on that sabbath warrants death
* believe that not believing in your mythical christ, That's a one way trip to hell, To burn forever, In eternal flames and be eternally damned for having done nothing wrong
* believe that if you find this mythical christ you can be happy in heaven. This would include Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hong Xiuquan, All serial killers, Torturers, Pedophiles, Rapists etc when it is they that should rightly burn. Nah. Such a bankrupt immoral corrupt set of rules and laws.
* believe to get rid of ALL of your possessions and follow this christ.
* believe to love your enemies
* believe to take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, It shall not hurt them
all in which case are completely immoral as they are listed so nice and neat in your idiot bible as the way of your unproven god or christ.
Your bible does not prove a god
faith does not prove a god
science does not prove a god because there was no science in your bible to prove a god. A double whammy.

"The Moral Argument is simply an argument for a monotheistic god and not any specific one. "
Such as ignorant statement when you claim yourself to be a christian.

There is no definition for a god because no human has ever been in the company of a god and been able to prove it. You cannot test nor can you demonstrate a god. It is impossible because you cannot define a god because none has been defined by anyone in the history of the human race because no god has ever been seen, Defined, Told to anyone through talking about/ oratory, Written about from a god's point of view as far as to how it can be tested, Demonstrated and thus defined. So you as a believer have no evidence to back up any claim to thus prove that any god from any religion exists.

I'm out of space.
Debate Round No. 1
TylerHilgeman

Pro

Alrighty then, You had a lot of thoughts on the subject. However, A common assumption was present throughout your response. That assumption is that there is some standard for morality. This view was most clearly seen in your following statements: "Because slavery is -always- completely and totally morally wrong" and "You do fully understand that I nor anyone who has ever lived needs, Requires, A god to be moral. "

Curiously you contradicted these statements with: "You fully understand that everybody's definition of morality is different. "

How is slavery always morally wrong if people have different morals? Are you imposing your own morals on others or are you appealing to a higher standard of morals?

Sam Harris did an experiment once in which he essentially asked people if they thought _____ was good or not. What he found was that there is a sense of common morality among humans. He then concluded that this morality must have come from evolution--in that what is good is only good because it betters you or your "heard. "

However, There is a flaw in that theory. Most people would say, For example, That eating another human to survive is wrong--even if there is no other source of food. However, That does not fit into most atheist's understanding of morality. If the atheist were to be consistent, He would say that it is the survival of the fittest, Whether that applies to the individual or the "heard, " so the moral thing to do is, If you are dying of hunger and there is no other food source, Then it is okay to eat another human.

I hope that you do not believe that cannibalism can be morally good. If you don't, Then why? I wrote an essay on this subject explaining why a personal being has to be the source of morality here: https://www. Themusenetwork. Org/post/the-moral-argument

I'll get into that argument in my next response, But, So as to keep this simple, I'll wait for now.

As for your last couple of statements in which you basically said that I can't prove the existence of God using the Bible, Faith, And science; I agree. I never said I could prove His existence that way. God is non-physical and therefore science cannot "test" God to see if He exist. Faith is, Simply put, Belief manifested, So that has nothing to do with proving God. The Bible does not prove God either, It can lend evidence that can then be tested to see if it is true, But I do not know why anyone would think the Bible alone proves that God exist.

Lastly, You had a lot of statements that had no support. So, I did not respond to them. The burden of proof is on you, You cannot expect me to do your own research so that I can try to debunk it. In order to have a productive debate, Please provide evidence for your statements that you assume I will not automatically agree with.
backwardseden

Con

"You had a lot of thoughts on the subject. "
You only allowed 5, 000 characters which are phenomenally cowardly, Otherwise there would be a lot more truths on the subject that you are your toxic brain cannot even fathom.
There is a standard for morality as far as this debate is concerned.
Everybody who has ever lived is better and far more moral than your unproven character storybook character god of print only.
No sparky it's not a contradiction to state "You fully understand that everybody's definition of morality is different. " As people who are genuine and truthful, Unlike you, We live outside of the box of your immoral religion as we are individuals not to be forever closed.

Did you even make the attempt to watch the video phone calls especially the couple of minutes where Shannon Q really digs in? Why no. Of course not. Then you have 0 of nothing to quibble about within your whines.

"For example, That eating another human to survive is wrong--even if there is no other source of food. "
Yet in your bible it is completely moral DT 28:53, EZ 5:10, LV 26:29. Those are just a few examples of the morality of your unproven god's act of wishing cannablaism on others. Pathetic and sick.
How do you know what fits into "most atheist's understanding of morality" when you do not even know what an atheist is? So we shall neatly ignore your definition until you learn what an atheist is as you were just proven false as always. You didn't even know your unproven god sanctions/ orders cannabalism? Wow. And yet you are trying to blame atheists for their immorality that they if put into a positioning that they'd actually become cannibals? YOU ARE THE CANNIBALS as you try to swallow your gluttened pride. Darn. You lost.

Yeah. You wrote an essay "on this". On what exactly? Why? To beef up your own ridiculous He-man She-Ra "I am the power" pleasure tart?
Awe gee, Still stuck on the cannibal ideal. Such a pure athletic numbness failure. Poor wittle you that can't make a point.
Um duh. You posted the same thing TWICE and I read it once and gave some feedback on it in the previous RD though your essay is not worth a bent nickel.

Hmmm so according to you "god is non-physical". Since this is true, Then you in no possible way can prove the existence of your god and ou also cannot define a god because you have no idea as to what a god is. It doesn't matter if "science" cannot test your god. It matters it YOU can test your god. It also matters if YOU can demonstrate AND assert your unproven god. And sorry, You can't. Then it gets much worse for you because you'd have to take all of that goo you have stored wherever and then present it to one, Just one, Scientific community from around the world (that is not theistic - after all you cannot be biased and you are so ridiculously biased and racist I might add that it is stamped across your forehead like a bald eagle hunting for its pet fish, And after all theism is not in any way science) of merit and get a passing grade. But you have another problem. That is if this scientific community is up to standards, You would not even be allowed to enter through the front gates. Take one lucky guess why? So you are left with your fwuffy wittle tail held high in the air.

"You had a lot of statements that had no support. "
Really? I can back up ---everything--- I state. What would you like me to back up? Oh do you mean verses that are in your idiot bible? That's no problem. As I said, You only permit 5, 000 characters. Oh but wait, No true god if genuine would even dream of using text/ the written word, Namely your bible as a source of communication, Advertisement, Correspondence, The worst possible way for a god from any religion. There are at least 50 reasons for this. Hopefully, You are smart enough to think of at least 3. If you can't then you don't know your religion as well as you think. In fact, It not at all.

No sorry. The B. O. P. Is entirely upon you every single time, No exceptions, None. Why? YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVE YOUR GOD EXISTS! I'm not the one proposing what the restrictions and confinements are. You are. That's why the B. O. P. Is ---always--- upon you. That's the laws you set. If you don't like it then you should not propose a god. So why should atheists go out of their way to prove that a god does not exist? How ridiculously counterproductive that is. So once again, The B. O. P. Is 100% on you, No exceptions, None.

What research? It's not my problem AT ALL that you do not in any possible way know your bible and religion, That's yours. If you don't, And now we both know that you don't because you just freely admitted it by not knowing actual verses, Then you should not have composed this idiotic moronic debate in which case in no possible way can you back up in any possible way with evidence to support your ridiculous claims. So should you and I end this debate because you have no idea what your religion is about and you don't know your bible at all Y____? N____?
Debate Round No. 2
TylerHilgeman

Pro

I allowed 5, 000 words so as to keep the responses concise and right to the point.

First, This debate is not about the God of Christianity. As I stated in my first post, "The Moral Argument is simply an argument for a monotheistic god and not any specific one. " So, To use the Bible against the argument is a fruitless endeavor. While I am willing to talk about the morality of the Bible in a different debate, I will not in this one--so as to stay on track. Also, We cannot even begin to discuss what is moral or not until there is a standard. If there is no standard, Then why debate the topic at all?

You made a comment that, Because God is non-physical, He cannot be defined. Why not? I think you mean that He cannot be defined in physical terms, But that is a given. He could be defined in non-physical terms like: He is a just, Compassionate, And a loving God.

You seem to think that science is the only way to gain knowledge. Like I said, I do not claim to uses science to show that God exist. However, I do claim to uses reasoning to show that God exist. Reason can be used to uptain knowledge. Reason is implemented in, For example, Science, Philosophy, And history. Reason does not always guarentee accurate knowledge, But right reasoning gives the most likely truth--given the circomstances. In this debate, I am using philosophical thought to come to the conclution that God must or most likely exist. I am no scientist, But I am a amature philosopher and therefore, My "community" is not that of scientist but philosphers.

The burden of proof is on whoever provides an unssupported and constested claim. So, If you say that Apple Phones are better than Samsung Phones, And I dissagree, Then you have to provide the evidince or reasonings that supports your claim.

Below is my argument:

1. If objective moral values exist, Then a supreme being must be the standard for the objective moral values.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, A supreme being must be the standard for objective moral values.

If you dissagree with this argument, Then you would then explain which premise you dissagree with. The burden of proof is then on me to provide evidence/reasonings for my premises. So, In your next response, Choose a premise(s) that you dissagree with and then explain why. I will then provided evidince/reasonings for the premise(s) that you dissagree with.
backwardseden

Con

"I allowed 5, 000 words so as to keep the responses concise and right to the point. "
Laughter laughter ha ha tee hee. That's a good one. Especially when it is you that first straggled from what was your supposed point in which case there cannot possibly be a point from you to hurrah your status to a winning side.

For a third time and last time still avoiding Shannon Q's 2 1/2 minutes? If you fail to tackle what she states head-on, All-of-it, I will completely ignore every single thing you state. You've had more than a chance to prove yourself whereas I have WITH EVIDENCE

"The Moral Argument is simply an argument for a monotheistic god and not any specific one. "
Then it would have to be the abrahamic god or no god because all other religions known have at least more than one god in which still breaks apart because you STIIL CANNOT TEST, DEMONSTRATE, ASSERT AND ESPECIALLY DEFINE A GOD. But I get it, I really do. You MUST think you are extra special. You MUST think you are above all others who have existed in the entire human race because NOBODY has ever been able to in the entire history of the human race. So what makes YOU above everybody?

Avoiding at all costs your unproven god is completely immoral and loves cannibalism? I---LOVE---IT!
Avoiding at all costs "How do you know what fits into "most atheist's understanding of morality" when you do not even know what an atheist is? " Again, I---LOVE---IT! And because you don't, And because you have no concept of it, You don't even have any concept as to what an atheist is, You merely guess, Your entire argument fails and will always fail. Now take one lucky guess why?

"You made a comment that, Because God is non-physical, He cannot be defined. "
I didn't state that. You might want to check your logs on that again, Then go from there. K? I'll give you a small little hint on the subject. . . Your ability to read people and their tells is truly horrifying. So I strongly suggest that you don't, Especially for this debate.

"You seem to think that science is the only way to gain knowledge. "
Yep. You mentioned reasoning and philosophy. In order to gain the pinnacle of reasoning and philosophy, The end product of reasoning and philosophy will be science or produced through science as reasoning and philosophy does-not-prove-a-god. It's not going to ever be achieved through something like a holy BOOK which never proves a god. Miracles never prove a god. Faith never proves a god.

"However, I do claim to uses reasoning to show that God exist. "
Which one? And why only one god? Why not thousands, Millions, Billions, Quadrillions of gods? Or the very best bet is why not any gods since YOU have no evidence to support any claim that any god from any religion exists as previously asked but naturally you did not answer because both are unanswerable questions from your position of arrogance? An no, "reasoning" does not prove a god exists.
"Reason does not always guarentee accurate knowledge, "
Then it's D. O. A. According to you.
"I am using philosophical thought to come to the conclution that God must or most likely exist. "
"Must" or "most likely" are two very different things. Which is it?

Oh and btw, Philosophy in no possible way proves a god. I get it I really do. So if true, Then you MUST think that greek myths and roman myths are 100%true, So are Mayan, Incan, Aborigine, Cherokee, Apache, Inuit, Paiute, Siox etc etc etc who had a lot more integrity and credibility than your god damned f--king abrahamic unproven storybook character god of print only that wanted to murder everything according to its print except for Mormonism which is so ridiculously silly beyond all hope that in no possible way can it be taken seriously, Just like the other abrahamic religions. However, At least the others mentioned lived at one with Mother Earth, Treated her with respect, Dignity, Did not rape her, Gave back to her whereas your unproven god does the complete opposite and gives permission for man to rape her genesis 1:26.

"1. If objective moral values exist, Then a supreme being must be the standard for the objective moral values. "
Already explained in full glorious detail.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
True.
3. Therefore, A supreme being must be the standard for objective moral values.
Already explained in full glorious detail.

"I am no scientist, But I am a amature philosopher"
You are right. You are no scientist. Neither am I. But I do not automatically discredit something unlike you before knowing something about it and thus using it for a subject(s) to learn about for which I am going to be discussing. Since you are no scientist, SHEESH, Then don't even bother making any attempts to discredit something you know absolutely nothing about, And yet you pretend that you do and thus invent excuses for it, This debate is now over. I have no time for sloth gooey amateurs. GOD!
Tell you what, I'll give you 1 final out. Watch AND respond to the 2 1/2 minutes of Shannon Q.
Debate Round No. 3
TylerHilgeman

Pro

So, You believe in objective moral values, But you disagree where those values exist. I believe that those objective moral values come from a personal being. The reason why I think that, Is because only personal beings can understand and apply those values. The only other alternative would be, In your case, A random force--being the stand for morality. If the universe came about by chance, And there is no God, Then morality is meaningless. At best, As Sam Harris believes, It is a productive way to live within society. However, In that view, There is no real meaning or value to morality. If someone behaves badly, He is, Essentially, Lowering his chances of being one of the "fittest. " (survival of the fittest) However, Outside of society, Morality ceases to exist. Who is to say that it is wrong for a father to beat and abuse his kid, If it will have no effect on the society? During the time of Hitler, Who is to say that it is wrong to exterminate the Jews? At the time, The science of genetics was lacking, So until that data did come out that disproved Hitler's ideology, Then who is to say that He was wrong? It could be said, Withing that worldview, That Hitler was a great man for making a "superior race. " That he was, In a way, Creating the next step of human evolution.

However, If there is a God who is the standard for morality, Then good and evil now has value. Hitler could then be condemned, And so too the abusive farther. Now, If God is our creator, And we understand the difference between good and evil, Then He must have endowed us with an inherent sense of right and wrong. The question is, Which "lends" of thought fits with reality as we know it? I think a list of questions could easily show which view is correct, Or at least which one is closer to reality.

The below are yes and no questions that, Depending on the answers, Will show which view is correct:

1. In a survival situation, Would a mother be justified in selling her child to organ harvesters for money?
2. Was it right for those Spartan parents to leave their infant daughters to die because it is economically better for them to have a son instead?
3. Was it okay for the Romans to force people to fight to their death in the colosseum--so as to entertain and up the moral of the Roman society?
4. Is it okay to challenge another man to a duel for the hand (in marriage) of a lovely maiden?
5. Is it okay to exterminate all economically useless members from society--like most old people and the homeless?

If you said no to all of the above, Then your sense of morality is coherent with the belief that a personal being is the standard of morality. However, If you said yes to all of the above, Then your sense of morality is more coherent to the survival of the "fittest" "morality. " I think it is reasonable to say that the majority of the population would tend to answer no to most or all the questions. Which leads one to ask: "why? " The only reasonable answer is that morality is based in a personal being and not "nature. "

Here are some of my replies to Shannon Q:

Around the 1:02 mark, She is talking about God as an aspirational archetype for morality and whether that is an effective way to base morality in or explain it. It is important to note that the question she was asked already assumes God as non-existence, And she uses that assumption to explain why God, In that lens, Is not an effective way to explain morality. Her main critique was that if morality, From that God, Can be improved upon, Then using God as an aspirational archetype would be limiting and therefore non-effective. I agree. If there is no God, And yet we use God as an aspirational archetype for morality, Then there could be limitations and no way to improve upon known and always evolving morality (assuming naturalism is true).

Around the 1:10 mark, They started talking about how God as an aspirational archetype is unnecessary to have people believe in because knowledge of morality can come from most things. So, In their reasonings, It would be limited to only use God as an aspirational archetype when it could be a combination of things. I also agree with this idea, Assuming that God does not exist and naturalism is true.

Around the 1:11 mark, She explained that atheists have aspirations to live morally and it is wrong to believe that, Without a God, They would be immoral. I would question where her standard of morality is coming from and why she should act that way. Just because most atheists act a certain way, Does not mean they do it with logical consistency.

I am running out of space, So, If you want, I'll respond to rest of what she says in my next response. The reason why I did not originally respond to what she said is because it does not relate to this debate. She is answering a question with the assumption that there is no God and that God is merely an aspirational archetype. So, While an interesting idea, It has no relation to this argument.
backwardseden

Con

You ran out of space because you didn't leave enough space for a legitimate argument. Let this ---always--- be a lesson to you next time to compose with the maximum allotted characters not only for others to compose their debates but for you as well.

I only asked for one thing from Shannon Q and that was at the 1:11:00 mark. So depending on what happens here before that happens, I may run out of space.

You know something? Skipping 75% of a debate does not show intelligence. Nor does it show an education. It however does show fleeing from a scene.
Now I really hate it when people put words in my mouth, So please save it and not tell me what I believe or disbelieve or better yet what I know and don't know because what I do know to be true can be proved whereas what you believe is a belief and nothing more.

I disagree with YOUR definition of what "objective moral values are. Take one lucky guess why?
Though you constantly say "I believe" and "I think", You know what this means? It means you cannot prove one single thing. It means you guess at best. Now what part of that don't you understand?
"The only other alternative would be, In your case, "
You have no idea what my case is. I haven't explained AT ALL to you what I know to be true.
"If the universe came about by chance, And there is no God, Then morality is meaningless. "
According to what preschooler? You? How would you know? What grade F on all report cards did yah come up with that imbecilic ratio that would not pass any 20 churches within a 20 mile radius from anywhere in the world and get any kind of consensus as stated before with a billion to 1 shot. Care to make a wager on that once again that is IF and only if you are honest?
Oh but wait! I happen to be perfectly moral and so do billions of others and POOF we live outside of your idiotic rules. THERE! POOF! You were just proven wrong. How's that for proof? In other words, You can't just make things up as you go along and expect every single person on this planet expect what you say to be true and POOF wah-lah it is! Shebang! So once again, What makes you so special, AND what makes everybody else wrong?

"However, Outside of society, Morality ceases to exist. "
That has got to be one of the dumbest things stated of all time. It's easily in the top 5. No question. It's right up there with someone actually believing that one of the 10 commandments is overeating and obesity. I get it. I really do. So if someone lives alone for their entire adult lives according to you, Morality ceases to exist. Wow. This shows that YOU are immoral to take a dump on someone like that especially if this individual keeps to himself, Talks to no one, Does no harm and is perfectly happy living a life of solitude. You are really pathetic. You do realize that's a debate ending stat that you came up with, With your beady toxic horrid little brain.

"Who is to say that it is wrong for a father to beat and abuse his kid, "
People who are moral. People who know better.

"However, If there is a God who is the standard for morality, Then good and evil now has value. "
Whoever said there has to be evil? Only in YOUR tepid world where there is a god does there have to be evil. AND to make matters far far far worse for you, Once again, You still cannot test, Demonstrate, Assert nor can you define a god because you have no idea, None, As to what a god is.
So for a final time, WHICH GOD? AND WHY ONLY ONE GOD?

"Hitler could then be condemned, "
Wow do you know how to truly dig yourself tarpits that you simply cannot get out of because if this god is a god then to would have had to created this Hitler knowing all too well what it would turn out to be thus this UNPROVEN god is far worse than the Hitler it knowingly created as it is responsible for this Hitler. Sorry. You cannot in any possible way weave yourself out of this. You are not smart enough to. Besides, Hitler was a devout christian.

"Now, If God is our creator, "
Creator of what?

"I think a list of questions could easily show which view is correct, "
Yep. Yours isn't. You have no evidence to back up your claims.
Here's a couple of videos based on evil to help you out of your box.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=Z1BzP1wr234&t=5s%20How - How god favors free will
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=HcHYsieoQK8&t=58s - Summarizing that god is evil

Now why did you ask those 5 ridiculous questions that are completely irrelevant because they don't prove a god and regardless your unproven god would approve of them all? AND regardless it's not up to me what "I" think now is it? It's up to what YOUR unproven god thinks in which case you cannot make a determination either way because once again you cannot prove it even exists. So you are automatically put in limbo.

Now I only have a couple of characters left for Shannon Q.
"In that lens, Is not an effective way to explain morality. "
She's right because we don't need nor require a god to depend on it for anything. PE-IR-OD.
Debate Round No. 4
TylerHilgeman

Pro

I did not put words in your mouth. Here is the quote where I got that information in which you responded to my argument:

"1. If objective moral values exist, Then a supreme being must be the standard for the objective moral values.
Already explained in full glorious detail.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
True.
3. Therefore, A supreme being must be the standard for objective moral values.
Already explained in full glorious detail. "

Just because I say "I believe" does not automatically mean that I cannot prove my premises. If you go back and look at the context in which I said "I believe" it was to communicate what my stance on the argument is--so as to have a clear debate. It was never used to prove a point.

You said that you do not agree with my definition of objective moral values. That is something you should have brought up in the beginning, I am curious of how you would define objective moral values. I assumed that you would agree with the accepted definition of the term, Which is why I never brought it up. To clarify what objective moral values are, It is moral values that are not subjective to the individual but is, In a way, A fact. So, Moral opinions are not objective, But subjective, Whereas, Moral actualities are objective, Not subjective. By objective moral values, It is meant that these values apply to all personal beings without discrimination and personal preferences. Because of that, An objective standard can be realized among all.

By "your case" I meant the average atheist beliefs on the subject. In the beginning, I tried to get you to communicate your views on the subject, But instead you went off on a lot of non-related rants. So, In order to keep the debate on track, I had to assume some of your views.

The reason why morality is meaningless without God is that there is no point to it. Without God, There is no objective standard for morality and therefore morality is subjective to the individual. Meaning, Morality is what you make of it and nothing more. In that world, There is no reason to act "good" because "good" is just a figment of your imagination and therefore has no value. Everyone is going to die one day and the universe will eventually "die" leaving your "legacy" dead also. There are no ultimate consequences for your actions and therefore no reason to act "good. "

When I said that morality "ceases to exist outside of society, " that was within the lense that there is no God and Sam Harris's view of morality is correct. It was not a personal attack but just reality--within that worldview.

When I asked, "Who is to say that it is wrong for a father to beat and abuse his kid " you said: "People who are moral. People who know better. " How do you know something that you cannot define? What is this standard that you appeal to? Or is it just what you were taught to think and nothing more?

You asked why there has to be evil if there is good. If there is no evil, Then good would not be able to be defined. For example, Imagine you are a deep-sea fish, Would you know that you are wet? If you never knew things to be dry and never been told about the concept of dryness, You could never define wetness. Wetness is the opposite of dryness and vice versa. The same can be applied to good and evil.

Your comment about Hitler was another classic red-herring response. Meaning, You did not even attempt to provide a defeater for what I said but instead tried to draw my attention away from my argument. But, I'll play, And give a basic answer. God gave man free-will, Meaning they can make their own decisions. So, To blame Hitler's actions on God is very misleading and dishonest. Also, Saying you are a Christian does not make you a Christian. If you observed what Hitler did, It can be easily concluded that he was not a Christian.

When I said, "Now, If God is our creator" you asked: "Creator of what? " Creator of everything.

You are right, I did not provide evidence to show that most people would answer my list of questions with the same answers. Sam Harris did, On his Ted talk on morality. Also, I did not think that evidence was needed, Because I assumed you would agree with me that most people would answer "no" to those questions. I am curious to know why you think most people would answer "yes" to those questions.

The reason why I asked those questions is to show that objective moral values exist.

Overall, My argument was not presented with any defeaters throughout the debate and therefore stands untouched. If you (anyone) would like to present any defeaters to this argument, Let me know and I'll be happy to debate you.

To backwardseden, If you want, Since we never actually debated the topic, I am willing to do another debate. However, You have to stay on topic and present your view on the matter clearly. Then we can define terms, And start debating.
backwardseden

Con

I'm done. You've refused to answer the very simplest of questions. . . Which god? And why only one god? Sheesh. Pathetic. Argue with someone else. Your arguments are only to stimulate your own gratification to clarify YOUR definitions for "belief" in which case you cannot even define. So why bother?
And btw, It's you who has not stayed on the topic because you cannot answer the most basic of questions so you are forced to state and make false claims by wrongfully judging me by actually believing you think that you think you know what I think and or know in which case it's not even a close call because you truly have no ability whatsoever to read people's tells and you probably do not even know what a tell is, Which means you've done it to others, Which means your ability to debate with others SUCKS.
You are so convinced of your ways that you are correct. Therefore EVERYBODY else MUST be wrong. This is why you MUST be all alone in this world. I feel sorry for you. But no need to worry as so so sooooooo many other DDO debaters are all alone as well, So convinced they have proof of nothing.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@missmedic - I find it sad when people like Pro, TylerHilgeman, Develop debates like these and they have no concept, None, Of the and total immorality of the very text/ written word of the unproven god of print they believe in, In which they cannot even define, Either because they don't know about it or because they go into a miserable completely collapsed subconscious denial.
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
missmedic
The only way by which God can be a Morally perfect being is under the axioms of his own framework. For no moral compass can be Objective unless subject to, And the focus of the displayed definition of Morality itself.
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
missmedic
The bible uses fear of punishment and want of reward to teach obedience not morality.
The god of the bible punishes the children for the crimes of their parents. (Adam&eve) That is not moral.
There is very few moral teaching in the bible and most of them are countered or contradicted else where in the bible. Look to the ten commandments, Immoral.
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
missmedic
Morality is innate in most all social creatures however morality is not applicable in a survival situation.
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
missmedic
To be objective one only has to refer to the facts of reality as the source for moral judgment.
Following the rules of any supreme being renders you obedient not moral.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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