The Instigator
timmyjames
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
missmedic
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Without a God, Is there moral truth?

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: 10/22/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 731 times Debate No: 118673
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

timmyjames

Con

Hello Missmedic, I am excited for our second debate and I am interested on what you have to say about this topic. For the first round please just accept. Arguments will begin next round.
missmedic

Pro

I accept, Please clarify moral truth with a definition.
Debate Round No. 1
timmyjames

Con

First, I will define moral

Moral: of, Relating to, Or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.

So in other words, Does moral truth exist if God does not exist? Can we correctly decipher objective right and wrong if there is no absolute authority?

If all this world is is chemical reactions, Physics, Etc, Then how does produce proper logical inference? How does it produce truth? How can you know moral truth if all your brain is is chemical reactions? No matter what moral truth you say, I can always respond with, "your brain made you say that. " How can your conclusions be trusted if all they are are just chemical reactions? People have different views of moral truth all the time. It now is no longer a matter of truth, It is a matter of "my chemical reactions are better than your chemical reactions. "

There is no moral truth because according to atheists, All we are are just the result of natural laws. That cannot produce truth
missmedic

Pro

Con does not address the question, But asks more questions. Con offers a definition and then attempts to change that definition by asking leading question. Rather then answering con's plethora of questions. I will stay on point answering the leading question. Without a God, Is there moral truth? AKA a universal moral standards.
Preachers tell us that any universal moral standards can only come from one source - their particular God. Otherwise standards would be relative, Depending on culture and differing across cultures and individuals. The data, However, Indicate that the majority of human beings from all cultures and religions or no religion agree on a common set of moral standards. While specific differences can be found, Universal norms do seem to exist. These may be called 'universal' morals but I would not accept that term on too strict a basis as I am sure that if you look, You will find exceptions. What is the source of these near-universal moral behaviours? Evolution. If we theorize that evolution (not religion) leads to common morals, Then, Our theory predicts that we will find moral behaviour in many social animals and that this behaviour can be explained in terms of the propagation of genes. Well, In nature, This is exactly what we find. It seems that animal morality, Including Humankind's, Looks exactly as it would look if there was no set of absolute morals being imparted to individuals by God.
You can join a world religion and find a part of it that already matches your ethical thinking. This destroys the argument that morality comes from religion. Culture, Individual psychology and deliberation are their true sources, And, Are all secular in origin.
Debate Round No. 2
timmyjames

Con

But the problem is, If this world is just made up of physics, Chemistry, That doesn't produce truth. You said that if everyone or most people in this world believe something, Then it is morally correct. This is an Argumentum Ad Populam fallacy. If everyone believes something, Does that make it true? Of course not. Most people believe in God, But that does not make it true.
Why can anyone's brain be used for the standards of moral truth, If according to your worldview, All we are are just chemical reactions and physics. That doesn't mean truth. If your worldview is just composed of the natural laws than that's what it reduces to. Take an example from Matt Slick. This is an extreme example yet it still applies to us because all we are is a different version of this. When baking soda is mixed with vinegar and it explodes, Does that produce proper logic? Well obviously not. If we are just here by natural laws, Then that's what we have to go off of. Because your brain is just chemical reactions, And one chemical reaction leads to another, No matter what moral truth you say, I can always counter by saying, "your brain made you say that. " If all we are are just chemical reactions, Then any conclusion we make can't be trusted. It just came from chemical reactions
missmedic

Pro

Your right, Belief does not equate to truth, As I never implied it did. What the claim addresses is whether these moral categories exist in reality, Not in someone"s belief system. The point I was making and your mistaking, Is that morality is an inherit behaviour of social animals making it an evolutionary trait. Showing that morality exist in the natural world, Also know as reality. An objective morality, Is based on the facts of reality. All one needs in order to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments. We do not need gods to be good, We need reason.
Debate Round No. 3
timmyjames

Con

Ok, So we both agree that moral truth cannot be accessed through anyone's brains, But we disagree on whether or not it exists in reality. If it exists in reality, Then where does it come from, If not from God? According to your worldview this universe is make up of physics, Chemical reactions, Etc, But as I've said, That doesn't produce moral truth. Yes, Animals might behave in a way that might be universally considered moral, But that doesn't create moral truth. Physics, Chemistry, Etc doesn't produce truth.
If we are just chemical reactions, Then we can't reason. All that is really going on is one chemical reaction leading to another chemical reaction. No matter how you reason in any way, I can always counter saying, "your brain made you say that. " Any conclusions you make cannot be trustworthy because of this.
missmedic

Pro

I concede
Debate Round No. 4
timmyjames

Con

Thank you con for your concession.
missmedic

Pro

so who wins
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by timmyjames 3 years ago
timmyjames
Thanks Backwardseden,
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Regardless Timmy has apologized to me and I to him and we have become friends. And my frustration/ anger that was geared towards him, Which should have never been in the first place, Is now gone.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@missmedic - You know me. . . I would have posted my little convulsions of arbitrary illusions by now. But I get that Timmy was just not handling himself all that well he was digging himself wishing well water and being elongated in it but I don't think he's comprehending at all what you were trying to say to him. And who am I to explain it to him and thus interpret your poetry (I consider what you say poetry) in any way wrong? So I don't know you know or if you have seen, I took him into the other debate and told him of his other fallacies as I have seen within this debate. Perhaps that was a bad decision on my part. If so, I humbly apologize.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
FYI everything that exist, Exist in reality.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
I do not want to have a conversation in the comments section so message me.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Timmy you do not seem to be reading my argument, As you are asking questions I have answered.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Yeah. Agreed. But how does one accept a god as a truth from the beginning? Everybody, As we both know, Is born an atheist. Everybody, In order to believe, Must somehow be indoctrinated by someone somehow. And then once accepted especially if accepted for a very long time it does become very hard to change as most religions are governed by power then fear and then control.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Changing ones lifelong worldview can be a fearful proposition, As it means accepting some very hard truths.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Sadly and ridiculously people do follow the bible as an authoritative force for how they judge their morality. Its who and what fundamentalists are. The bible for many who believe is also supposed to be the "perfect" word of god. For many who believe its not and is written by man. Its one of the many reasons why there's no consensus and the christian religion is failing. Now those looking in, How is there supposed to be truth when they don't know what truth is? Does gullibility hit their senses and do they follow that slipstream of awkwardness? Or do they intelligently read what is in front of them and make educated choices which rarely happens?
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
The bible is authoritarian not moral making it's followers obedient not moral. Morality is a human construct.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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