Thanks, Death23, for accepting.
Judges, refer to description for definitions.
There are (at least) two lines of reasoning that we can use to prove objective morality.
A. Intuition.
P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.
P2: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.
C1: Morality is objective.
Let’s work through this. Whenever two men have a dispute, the one side tries to convince the other that they have violated a standard of good conduct that they both share, while the other argues that they have not violated such a standard.
If there were not a shared standard between them, such an argument would be pointless, as one could simply say “to hell with your standard.” If that were the case, we could not condemn genocide, rape, or any other cruel act because we could not compare it to a universal standard of good conduct. Similarly, you can not argue that a football player committed a foul if the rules of football are not universally true.
Since we DO make disputes/condemnations, this universal standard must exist. Thus, we affirm daily that morality is indeed objective.
B. Probability
P1: If a god exists, then objective morality is true. (This is because the god would be the definition of good itself. i.e. that god's "will" would be standard for "good" conduct.)
P2: It is likely that god exists.
C1: Morality is likely objective.
P2 is likely where disagreement will arise.
I have two proofs of a god’s existence:
- The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Proponents of a naturalist theory will have to propose that, in order to explain everything in the universe, there took place the biggest possible violation of the basic laws of physics 14 billion years ago.
The theist has a much easier time justifying the Big Bang Theory: a god was the “uncaused first cause.” This one assumption that there is a god is vastly more probable than the infinite line of illogical assumptions that one has to make to otherwise justify pure naturalist theory.
- Biogenesis
“let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set!
At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene.”
The theist has no quarrel with these vast improbabilities. Theism instead posits a god controlled these events.
And thus, since a god would mean objective standard, we can safely arrive to our conclusion that morality is indeed objective.
Thank you.
I suppose you could argue such a thing, but it would falter ultimately.
Morality can be objective because every person appeals to the same set of principles.
While a lot of people evaluate music as good if it has a certain melody, rhythm, or lyrics... those principles have way too much variation within themselves to be any consistent measure of objective standards. And enough people denounce those standards entirely, such as people who prefer instrumental music, or those who would rather listen to a tribal drumline than Katy Perry, that they can't be chalked up to be flukes of nature.
you know, argument A sounds a lot like trying to argue music is objective. People argue what elements of the song appeal to them (melody, rhythm, lyrics), "therefore there must be an objective standard"
Thank you. Glad to be of service. However, I must advise, and should have in my previous commentary, that I do not believe a God can be evil. I respect God as a title, and not as a name of an omnipotent being, and, as a title, refers to a person who has achieved perfection in every respect, whereas evil is a complete lack of perfection. It is chaos. However, from a strictly logical argument, which may entertain concepts that are not true, the possibility of an evil god must be considered.
All good! I also appreciate your little commentary on my point, that gives me a few ideas to make my arguments stronger.
Good grief! Did I write that first paragraph in my vote reasoning without editing it, or what? "...but by acceptance but by allowing a debate to proceed..." ?! What a mash! I apologize
So be it, I will try to not forfeit.
Re: A more full debate at a later time - No objection. Re: Terminating this debate - I do not consent to that at this time.
Actually, if I'm honest, I have struggled to find time this week. I will likely struggle to have it the next time around too. For the sake of my sanity, would you be alright with canning this one right now? I think we should commit to a more full debate on it between us, maybe during my spring break.
Is it gonna happen?
Thanks for accepting!
I'm not a fan of kritiks... maybe I am a bore.
"1. No kritiks."
You're no fun...