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

There are no morals without God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
CRAZYMAN890 has forfeited round #3.
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: 8/6/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 103438
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




There no morals without God i want my opponent to prove there are morals without God


First point to be made here is that in order to prove that there are no morals without God, my opponent would need to show an intrinsic link between morals and God. The burden of proof should be on that claim. I hope my opponent shows this link.
Second, several philosophers have proposed ways in which there can be morals without God.
Kant believed that one can simply determine whether or not an action is good or bad by envisioning that everyone believed that it was good or bad. He also states, in addition, that objectification (using person as a tool) is objectively wrong by definition.
Another school of philosophers has stated that whatever causes pain is bad by definition - and whatever causes pleasure is good by definition. These philosophers are known as the utilitarian-hedonists.
Finally, one can use intuition to determine, somewhat accurately, what is right and wrong, regardless of religion. There is no reason to believe that this moral intuition derives from any deity.
CrazyMan890 ought to show why these moral systems cannot be used to determine morality. Comparing these to intuition is not a valid argument. He must also show a fundamental link between God and morals.
Debate Round No. 1


Without God there no morals. . You said that one philosopher said that humans can determine whats right from wrong from pain means in moral and pleasure means moral . Well why do people have to follow that ideal because few that are consider high in society said so ? No, why should human being follow a ideology that he/she might not agreed upon to them killing can be sport for them and they say killing me i don't care that just life, philosophers cannot prove morals just because they say its wrong to other people it could be right to them.

Since God created us he all knowing and knows whats best and knows what wrong from right since he created everything. Juts like when your parents teach you something you don't usually denied because they wise and they raise you. God created everything so he our Father AND ALL knowing so he knows what best.


The only point made by Crazyman is: why follow these ideas?
First of all, Kant's proposal is based in reason - he did not refute this.
Second, the utilitarian perspective is intuitively appealing, which may convince some to follow it.
Furthermore, why should we follow God's moral beliefs just because someone claiming to represent that being said so? If my opponent wishes to say that he is omniscient and all-good, and therefore knows morality, then I will point out that this means there is an objective standard of morality, and God is only able to recognize it - thus, there are morals without God.
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
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ockham 3 years ago
You guys need to cite sources. Neither of you have cited a single one, and the source points would be worth two points per voter.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Well there is no god. So your moral is the one you can create...
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Well god does not have any morals himself as he is completely bankrupt and immoral. So what can one expect? He doesn't care about children and hates them, causes massive genocides for absolutely no reason at all, hates gays for no reason at all, hates women, loves raped women, gets angry, has evil, has wrath, has vengeance, has rage, has fury, has jealousy etc etc etc. That's not being moral. But then again, and I don't mean to be picky or harsh, but a 14 year old posted this debate. What kind of an answer is he searching for?
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
I assert is that to be morally objective a person must use reason, as reason is absolute, reason does not contradict, reason is used to describe the one thing we all share, objective reality. We can all be good without gods, as a million non-believers prove everyday.
Posted by platoandaristotle 3 years ago
Well, I guess I'll assume it's argument.
Posted by byaka2013 3 years ago
Also you have BOP
Posted by platoandaristotle 3 years ago
Is the first round acceptance or argument?
This debate has 4 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.