God created Morality
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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
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.
Pro didn't really provide much of a case. He simply used circular logic to argue that 2 unproven things must be true.
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.
Thanks for the advice!
I recommend replacing “is ontologically committed to” with “assumes.” I find that easy-to-understand language is better debate strategy.
anthropology shows that morality predates religion thats not to disprove the existence of god, just to remind you that all religious texts were written by men based on long dead religions that came before morality in the bible predates the abrahamic religions we know that by studying ancient texts.
Cool lets save it for the debate
I have nothing against you either. We are just discussing a topic. But if you want to save this discussion for the debate, I will do that. But before our conversation ends, I would like to say just one thing:
When people say "Evolution is a theory, not a fact", it really pisses me off. A theory in science is not a random guess (that would be a hypothesis). A theory in science is higher than a fact, because a theory explains why facts are true or false. For example: the theory of gravity. It's a fact that objects with a density higher than air fall when we let go of them, and the theory of gravity explains why that happens. Similarly, it's a fact that animals have random mutations which give them a higher chance of survival, but evolution itself explains why that happens. If you say that evolution is "just a theory", are you saying that gravity is "just a theory" as well?
I am tired of this. I have nothing against you. Evolution is a theory not a fact.That is why it is called the Evolutionary theory. I have given you my reasons on why morale are biological. Can we just save this discussion for the debate you accepted.
"We are not animals."
Actually, we are. Humans are part of the Animal Kingdom.
"Survival of the fittest and natural selection are not in play."
Actually, they are. Evolution is a proven scientific fact.
"But the moral system God created is."
You have not proved that such a moral system exists, you have not proved that God exists, and you have not proved that God is responsible for that moral system. So please, continue.
we are not animals. Survival of the fittest and natural selections are not in play. But the Morale system god created is
morality is a biological thing
So far, your argument has been that love and good behaviour result in a longer and happier life. However, this does not prove that morality is objective and it does not prove that morality has been created by God.
this is not a troll debate
Good luck on this troll debate.