God is not necessary for objective morality
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
I, Jarrett_Ludolph, will be supporting the position that God is not necessary for objective morality, while my opponent will be supporting the position that God is necessary for objective morality. the winner will be the debater who supports their position the best. Note that we are not debating whether God is necessary morality itself, (for example, subjective morality can exist without objective morality),or if you need to be religious to be a good person. I look forward to a good debate.
- A man died from a broken heart after his wife died. This is proof of a soul
Losing a loved one really can cause someone to die from a broken heart, scientists claim.
- A man lifted a 3000 pound car off a small child. Through the power of love. He became superman and lifted a 3000-pound car This is proof of a soul
- He lifted 2000 pounds more then what the strongest man on earth could through the power of love.
"As I write in the story, Boyle accomplished an almost unthinkablefeat of strength. The world record for dead-lifting a barbell is 1,003pounds. A stock Camaro weighs 3000 pounds. So how did Boyle pull it off?"
- A bunch of babies died from lack of love. They were fed and watered and medicated. But because they lacked love they died. This is proof of a soul
Most of these deaths were not due to starvation or disease, but to severe emotional and sensorial deprivation – in other words, a lack of love. These babies were fed and medically treated, but they were absolutely deprived of important stimulation, especially touch and affection.
Giving is good for our health. A wide range of research has linked different forms of generosity to better health, even among the sick and elderly. In his book Why Good Things Happen to Good People, Stephen Post, a professor of preventative medicine at Stony Brook University, reports that giving to others has been shown to increase health benefits in people with chronic illness, including HIV and multiple sclerosis.
lso, I will be giving a main argument against my opponent's position. The argument is called the the Euthyphro Dilemma[4], and it is as follows:is something good because God wills it?does God wills it, because it is good?if something is good because God wills it, then some very problematic things are evident:1- the problem of arbitrariness - there is no standard, God makes something good on a whim, should we really listen to such a God?
he problem of triviality - such commands would use circular reasoning, what is good? what God says? but what does God say? what is good. circular reasoning is bad reasoning3- the problem of abhorrent commands - if God said murder was right, that would make it right, on Divine Command Theory. but murder is clearly wrong. God could allow alot of bad things to be good, if he only choose differently.
if God wills something because it is good, then God would get his morality from another source other than is own, and we could just cut out the divine middle man.
It comes from a comment on the article:
You cannot repay evil with evil.
Also, hell is infinite toture for finite sin, it's overkill, to much punishment. If I disobey God, I go to hell, and you think it's okay. However, if I disobeyed my father, and he burned me for it, you (assumeingly) think it's abhorrent, however being burnt to death is no where near the torture God gives to humans when they disobey him. It's not that I don't like it, it's because it's a violation of human rights.
[1]
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mahatma_gandhi_107039
[2]
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Circular-Reasoning
Also, another comment built on this, saying that since he only lifted the back tires, he wouldn't be lifting 3,000 pounds
Even though you see it as supernatural, the articles never use the words: soul, supernatural, or God.
honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with ... “And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his ... and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock.
1 Kings 3:14 ESV / 8 helpful votes
And if you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days.”
Proverbs 10:27 ESV / 8 helpful votes
The fear of the Lord prolongs life, but the years of the wicked will be short.
Can telling lies shorten your life?
This has nothing to do with god being necessary for morality. But more i do not like god morality."With all do respect, if you knew what the Euthyphro Dilemma was, you wouldn't have said that. It's not "I do not like God's morality" it's "God's morality seems fundamentally flawed"I have a couple of objections here. Firstly, I against the deaths sentence, so that argument doesn't work for me. Just because someone killed someone else, that doesn't mean you kill him back I'm not for "an eye for an eye" morality. To quote Mahatma Gandhi: "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind"[1]You cannot repay evil with evil.Also, hell is infinite toture for finite sin, it's overkill, to much punishment. If I disobey God, I go to hell, and you think it's okay. However, if I disobeyed my father, and he burned me for it, you (assumeingly) think it's abhorrent, however being burnt to death is no where near the torture God gives to humans when they disobey him. It's not that I don't like it, it's because it's a violation of human rights.
Why can God create morals and we can't?
Again, I'm not against punishment, it's that it's not much punishment. It's overkill. Enteral torture is to much punishment. I I stole something, the punishment by the government is not to burn him forever, it's to send him for jail for a finite time. Again, punishment is necessary, however, enteral punishment is too much. Again, it's like a father burning their child to death for disobedience. Disobedience must be punished, however, burning someone is not the way to do it.
"If i shoot fire balls out of my hand. does telling me that my hand released some kind of combustion hormone to make it happen make it not magic.No thats observed.if i kill a bunch of people and my eye's turn yellow.Would telling me that my brain released Tartrazine into my eye's to make them yellow.Would telling me this make it not a supernatural event.Of course not"
Nobody has ever shoot fireballs out of their hands, crossed, nor have they ever murdered someone and have their eyes turn yellow, you're just making stuff up. Provide sources for people shooting fireballs out of their hands, please.
No, it's not just my opinions. HumanRightsCareers.com has written an article of why torture is immoral. Also, the UN has outlawed torture.[1], Therefore, torture is wrong, and that means enteral torture with fire is to, obviously.
A research team led by Hunter College has shown that certain extra-virgin olive oils kill human cancer cells with no obvious effect on normal cells, according to a new study published in PLOS ONE
Crossed just conceded that he believes murdering people and stealing a candy bar from a store are just as bad as each other. This is clearly false, there's a reason you go to jail for one, and just get yelled at and forced to pay one dollar for the other, one's clearly worse than the other. Society punishes people based on how much harm the crime they did caused. This is why the courts give longer sentences for worse crimes. Crossed would have to be dening the court system of the US.
also, I must ask why is drinking milk from a cartoon a bad thing to do?
I will like to note, again, that crossed has never given a reason to trust God. Why should we listen to God's morals and not our own? crossed has never given me a reason. There is no reason to trust God's way over human's way.
However, crossed has never given any evidence that God created everything
Nobody has ever shoot fireballs out of their hands, crossed, nor have they ever murdered someone and have their eyes turn yellow, you're just making stuff up. Provide sources for people shooting fireballs out of their hands, please.
Yes it does. Crossed, I again tell you that there are explanations that debunk what you are trying to say, you don't need to invoke the supernatural to explain these situations. And again, the man was just lifting up part of the car a few inches, not the entire car above his head,
Also, another comment built on this, saying that since he only lifted the back tires, he wouldn't be lifting 3,000 pounds
He would be lifting everything up to the front tire's.which is most of the car. like around 70 percent
Even though you see it as supernatural, the articles never use the words: soul, supernatural, or God.
I know it does not say anything about supernatural or soul or god.I am the one who is saying that.I am forming my own conclusions with the information given to me.
Here crossed is just ignoring the explanations given for these "supernatural events"
and again, given a thorough explanation for why something happened,
And if you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days.”
(Me, Jarrett_Ludolph)Show that people that keep the ten commandments have longer lives. You have not given any evidence that when someone follows all of the commandments, they will live longer, this is a baseless assertion.
The Gift of Charity increases Speech by 10 points for one hour in real world time, viewable under the active effects section of the Dragonborn's Magic. It can be gained by giving a coin to a beggar, or if the Hearthfire add-on is installed, by giving a gift to an adopted child.
Me, Jarrett_Ludolph)"Why does God do this, why would he harden someone's heart, and kick them out for having a hardened heart? That's blaming the victimized.(I know you said it was a different topic, but I had to point it out)."
If i drink olive oil it kills cancer cells but not good cells.How can it tell the difference between good and bad.If nothing created the universe it should attack both good cells and cancer cells.Because nothing does not have knowledge of good and evil.It should Not individual select the cells that are killing the person and spare the cells which are not killing you.
A research team led by Hunter College has shown that certain extra-virgin olive oils kill human cancer cells with no obvious effect on normal cells, according to a new study published in PLOS ONE
How does olive oil have knowledge of good and evil. knowledge of good and evil is something only an intelligent person can have.A inanimate object should effect both because it lacks intelligence.Like how chemotheropy kills both good cells and bad cells because it is not intelligent.Morals are written into nature
Apple's feed good germs that help you.But does not feed bad germs when consumed.How can a non intelligent object have knowledge of good and evil.Only an intelligent being can have knowledge of good and evil
Only an intelligent being can have knowledge of good and evil.Knowledge of good and evil is written into nature.It is god morals that are written into nature Not yours.Not the un not humansrightscareer.com.Gods morals are written into nature.Thus he is necessary for morality.This also proves morality is not objective and is not something you and i can decide.It is something god decides.
Me, Jarrett_Ludolph)"HIV is a sexually transmitted diesease, a women can pass on HIV to a man, not just gay people get HIV. Again, with all do respect, this is just a baseless assertion until you bring evidence."
. You are using the articles for something they are not intended for. You are twisting the author's purpose, they never said that this is evidence for spiritual morality. The articles themselves disagree with you, stop trying to use them the way you do.
The current study, which was conducted by scientists from Weill Cornell Medicine, Rutgers University, and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, in addition to Hunter College, supports earlier findings of how oleocanthal kills cancer cells. Oleocanthal induces damage to cancer cells’ lysosomes, cell components that contain enzymes used to break down larger molecules like proteins. The oleocanthal degrades the integrity of the lysosomal membrane, releasing the enzymes into the cells’ cytoplasm, which leads to cell death. Cancer cells often have larger and more numerous lysosomes, making them more vulnerable to oleocanthal than other cells."
Also, there's an explanation for why apples are good for gut bacteria:
And the law of MODERN human rights have come from the Geneva conversation after World War II. In the modern understanding of human rights, it's not alright to "wilfully kill" or to torture people, even if the people broke the law. Our founding fathers, yes, set up a foundation for a democracy, however abolishmemt of slavery and Civil Rights came after 1700's. The founding fathers even had slaves themselves[3]. Again, the Geneva conversations gave us our modern understanding of human rights, with no mention of a God.
Human rights need God because three ingredients are critical to their validity: universal moral norms, human dignity, and their “trump card” status. These ingredients are found most vividly in religions grounded in the revelations of God. They are also rooted in reason, but reason itself points to God.
Seriously if anyone else tries to get through this, you would do well to stop after R2 (ctrl+f to look for key terms you wish to follow), the debate turns into a real mess.
In short: Pro swiftly shows objective morality that is not dependant on God. This never gets adequately challenged, even if it were proven that divine command theory can also be objective.
Summary...
R1:
Pro wastes no time getting to the meat and potatoes of this, with a declaration Utilitarianism > Divine Command Theory, and goes on to critic the Euthyphro Dilemma (the bit about God commanding murder, would have been strengthened with a quick example or two from religious texts).
Con declares there is a soul. (not sure how that was supposed to refute the conclusion)
Con goes on to call the Euthyphro Dilemma off topic to objective morality, since God is immoral (but then later God is beyond morals due to special pleading); but that if we obey Divine Command theory we are moral... huh?!
Oh and Batman!
R2:
Pro defends, and even uses con's own sources to explain that no car was magically lifted like a soccer ball in Top Gun (I don't think con implied it was that easy, but it's a nice mental image for the criticism all the same). And goes on to introduce the concept of biologically being able to explain things.
Pro clarifies the lack of an objective standard to God's morality within the Euthyphro Dilemma, and hammers home that hell would prove God to be immoral via infinitely disproportionate punishments.
Con asserts that killers have yellow eyes; and mostly drops pro's case (something about how death would be meaningless if it actually killed us, God will eternally burn all parents in hell...).
R3:
Pro does point by point extensions.
Con talks about shooting fireballs from his hands. And makes a very confusing sentence: "Rape stealing drinking milk from a carton pedophilia" I think it's missing the IS, but that still wouldn't make sense of it. ... Ok, he intended that to be a list separated by commas.
R4:
Dear god, I'm only half way through...
Pro denies that people shoot fireballs out of their hands (ok, I need to go to the store to get some Fireball whiskey!).
Con says drinking olive oil cures cancer...
R5:
Nothing that wasn't in the earlier rounds.
---
There is more to this debate. When I see the start to dead end things like rants against gay people, I skim right past looking for things that could affect the outcome.
everyone cast your votes (as of the writing of this comment, you only have 1 day left). Ragnar, thankyou for voting and thankyou for your advice
"Divine Command Theory does not make Mario’s behavior ethical, as it is merely denying his own autonomy. If he has no control over his own actions, it begs the question if we do as well, and if we don’t there is no reason we should consider not judging him as we might be being commanded to do so and have no choice but judge him as such. Whereas if it is just him being controlled, than attempting to pass all blame for what he did to some great god commanding him from above as if a child playing a video game, would only in the smallest sense excuse his actions, while dooming him for the safety of all. This is much like not blaming a rabid dog, even while it must be put down. From either viewpoint, we should judge Mario, and take measures against him to protect ourselves from him."
The biggest weakness to your case was taking the pills and going down the rabbit hole. Your case centered on Utilitarianism, and you let con steer the debate way off topic (thankfully, your introduction was good enough to win the day; that said, I've seen voters who would treat the point as gone because you did not continuously extend it).
Leave your votes please
Oh, okay.
I mean it's hard to read all the way though crossed's arguments
What do you mean by this is rough Sum1hugme?
Oh man, this is rough
I lose a few brain cells every time I read crossed arguments
I needed to cut 700 words from my second argument, to make it under 10,000 words so I can publish it. LOL.
you are right.
History is whatever we make of it. Tell me, is there anything policing historical fact from fiction? How can we be sure anyone said anything we attribute to them? We can make educated assumptions, sure... But in the end, if I want to say Aristotle said "your momma so fat she pulled Jupiter into orbit," can anyone really prove me wrong? Sure, the BoP should be on me, but that does not falsify my claim.
Vsauce video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2jkV4BsN6U
Aristhotle said anything you want him to say. All you have to do is add quotes and - Aristhotle at the end.
I mean it does sound like a internet username. It also got the snapchat filter. I know lots of people who says things that are basically nonsense branded as meaningful quotes on social media.
yes
So this supposed "aristhotle" said this quote that isn't even logically proven?
https://pics.me.me/aristotle-aristhotle-me-irl-31556138.png
How is this relevant and at where did Aristotle say it? If no, is it a joke of some kind?
"If in doubt, don't masturbate, take."
- Aristotle
Alright. I just drafted my introduction for this debate with sources. Then someone took it then complained. WOW.
It's going to kill me to find the time to write this
Agreed
Looks like this is the same decision I faced against CalebEr.
Ooo! Good topic. Welcome to the site