Instigator / Pro
11
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1317

God created Morality

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

semperfortis
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1684
rating
15
debates
100.0%
won
Description

stuff like this can happen.

"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you."
https://www.biblestudytools.com/gnta/passage/?q=deuteronomy+28;+deuteronomy+29;+deuteronomy+30;+deuteronomy+31;+deuteronomy+32

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

As pro is making the wide claim, he has the burden of proof.

Pro, in my view, has to provide an explanation as to what facets of morality cannot be explained by anything other than a supreme diety, preferably in contrast to other ubiquitous explanations. There must be an attempt to provide a case as to why these properties are likely unexplainable by any other mechanisms due to their nature.

Pro doesn’t attempt to do this, and instead mostly just holds up a set of facts and then says God did it. Con does well in this debate by pointing out this is the case with the minimum number of words possible.

As a result, pro doesn’t come close to upholding his burden of proof. Pro appears to explicitly assert morality exists and is created by God, then offers a series of anecdotes that do not warrant the claim.(if you’re sad you die younger, stress is harmful, you live longer if you “obey god”). These seem completely unrelated to the contention pro is offering.

As a result of this - arguments must go to con.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro didn't really provide much of a case. He simply used circular logic to argue that 2 unproven things must be true.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro at best rises to the level of circular reasoning, in a case that ends up no more claiming God created emotions than emotions created God.
Con repeatedly asks pro to prove the existence of either core concept (morality existing is a given, but this mysterious and undefined "moral law" does not), but pro refuses to even attempt this.