The Instigator
Con (against)
Anonymous
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Briss
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

does moral truth exist without a God?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 11/23/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 119124
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Con

If this world is just science, Then where does truth come from?
Briss

Pro

To argue this point I am assuming that you are speaking of God in the way he/she/it/whatever is commonly referred, Rather than how I personally believe that God and the bible is meant to be contemplated, Which coincides with academia, The likes of Jung or Peterson, And my studies of hermeneutics. That being, I'm assuming that in speaking of God you are referring to what the church might present to you as being God (what I'm getting at is that there are many ways to interpret what the word God itself means and refers to; I'm assuming you're talking about the contemporary mainstream North American version that church doctrines tend to promote).

Okay, So now to address the debate.

It isn't uncommon for one to assume the need for a higher physical presence to enforce ones moral law. After all, Morals are essentially personally held values that directly contradict instinctive nature (primal instinct or ones obligation to satisfy ones survival needs) in order to allow for one to fit into society. Therefore, The carrot and stick both apply to morals; one needs either benefits from following the moral law or consequences for not doing so in order to feel obligated to hold morals. Often it is thought that God, Him being an omnipotent being (that being a vast understatement of what God is and how he is relevant to society), Is the only force compelling enough to force one to act in accordance to the moral law. In other terms, Many people believe that an objectively determined reason for one to hold morals is the only way one will hold morals.

However, There are many examples of philosophies that prove this to be untrue. Kantian philosophy, For example, Tells us that morals can be derived from reason.

My argument is that (and I'm a moral relativist by the way) moral truth does not require a God in the mainstream sense in order to exist; it simply requires a universally acceptable truth (the moral truth) and an incentive to act in accordance to it (carrot or stick). For example, The Judaeo-Christian foundations of which our entire culture (Western Society) is built is still an incentive that many people in Western culture already feel the effects of, Even despite the fact that many of these people are only acting out the moral teachings (some unknowingly) while rejecting mainstream Christian views of what God is (I'm talking about atheists). This is why atheists, Agnostics, Cult members, Children who are too young to establish a proper moral standpoint, And people who are still trying to establish a worldview all still act in accordance to a moral law that society holds. Furthermore, I believe that a moral truth exists already because we as humans gravitate towards social systems, And when societies form certain concepts (often of which are recur similarly across different cultures) have to exist in order for a society to healthily sustain itself (lest they dissolve into anarchy because there are no morals to govern ones actions that might be harmful to other members of society). So for example, If you and I were trapped on a desert island with five other people, We as a collective are a society. An immediate inwritten rule is that we can't kill each other even if one of us has more coconuts than everyone else, Because in the end of the day (if we collaborate in survival which we almost indefinitely will because humans tend to gravitate to each other in that way), We all benefit from each other if we all decide not to backstab each other. Thou shalt not kill is a moral truth.

Sorry if I don't get my point across. I usually find it easier to explain my points than to make them, So I'm looking forward to your rebuttal. Cheers :)
Debate Round No. 1
Briss

Pro

I respect your decision to forfeit this round. Thank you for your time :)
Debate Round No. 2
Briss

Pro

I'll give you one more opportunity to rebuttal just in case. Apparently there's a system glitch going around
Debate Round No. 3

Con

Hey man, I owe you an apology for not responding to this debate. It was inconsiderate of me to do so. Maybe we can debate it another time.
Briss

Pro

No harm done. Yeah that sounds good :)
Debate Round No. 4
Briss

Pro

And that just about wraps thing up. Check out my debate with @GuitarSlinger if you want to see an interesting debate on the same topic
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Briss 3 years ago
Briss
@GuitarSlinger

I would be more than happy to debate you :)
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
@briss I'd be more than happy to debate this with you.

A few questions I have few are:
1) What exactly do you mean by "moral"
2) What exadtly do you mean by "truth"
3) Do you believe in "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong"

*****
" So for example, If you and I were trapped on a desert island with five other people, We as a collective are a society. An immediate inwritten rule is that we can't kill each other even if one of us has more coconuts than everyone else, Because in the end of the day (if we collaborate in survival which we almost indefinitely will because humans tend to gravitate to each other in that way), We all benefit from each other if we all decide not to backstab each other. Thou shalt not kill is a moral truth.

Honestly this statement of yours is simply YOUR opinion. What if, In this hypothetical scenario, The rest of us, All 6 of us, On the island all believe that our lives will indeed benefit if we do in fact kill you and take your coconuts. Is it ok to kill you? Why not? We believe it's to our benefit. What if we are not concerned at all with your benefit or well-being? We believe you are simply a drain on our resources on the island. I mean, The 6 of us met-- your do the least work on the island, You can't hunt or gather worth a darn. You just happened to pitch your hut under the most lucrative coconut tree on the island. So yes, Doing a way with you would benefit the 6 of us, Because (a) you would not be draining our resources, And (b) we get more coconuts.

I'm sure you would argue against it, But again, After all -- that is simply YOUR opinion. The 6 of us don't hold that opinion, And we have clearly shown how the 6 of us would benefit more from your not being here.

Would ok to kill you in that situation? Why or why not?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Moral is an idea. Any god is an idea. . Truth is an idea when it is without facts. .
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Typical 15 year old teeny bopper jackiebaby uses the timmyjames debate in a meager attempt to gain acceptance in which was debunked. But then again both jackiebaby and timmyjames are one and the same. Duh. He uses the same ole f--king debates because he is the same piece of crap that cannot come up with one god damned thing that is in the slightest bit original.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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