Instigator / Pro
23
1485
rating
92
debates
45.65%
won
Topic
#338

Morality Can Only Be Objective If God Exists

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
19
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Description

I want to begin by thanking MagicAintReal for agreeing to debate this topic with me. In this debate I will be defending the following proposition:

1. If objective moral facts exist, then God exists
2. Objective moral facts exist [not in dispute]
3. Therefore God exists

Definitions
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Objective: moral facts are true independent of human opinion, evolution, religious tradition, or culture.
God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, this debate is not about a specific religious tradition. I am not defending the Bible or the Qur'an.

Structure
1 - Opening arguments
2-3 Rebuttals
4. Conclusion

Rules
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss

As per my opponent's request Ethang5, Raltar, and Death23 cannot vote on the debate

-->
@Bifolkal

Don’t worry, you only get hundreds of angry PMs from Magic Aimt Real if you vote against him.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@David

Hey this is my first real in-depth vote so if I screwed up let me know, I will explain things too.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@David

Sorry for putting RFDs backwards. I’m pasting from a phone, and just can’t be bothered to wrestle trying to past from bottom to top!

As always, if either side would like any specific or generalized feedback, or clarification - let me know.

Gods existence:

The pseudo-kritik is IMO valid - but while pro doesn’t address the specifics head on - he points that if he proves P1 separately then his P1 stands. I think this is also valid.

As pointed out, con hinges all other counters to pros arguments to homeostasis, the dominos all fall and Pro satisfies P1.

So, given this, pro establishes P1, and even if con refutes P1, that leaves me a choice of whether cons refutation of P1 was as strong as pros establishment. Here, I don’t think went into nearly enough detail or provided enough information as pro did for C1, so I don’t feel it fair to award all arguments on this single fact.

Conclusion:

This was actually tough to weigh: Firstly, many arguments were implicitly linked together, and I had to determine whether of one thread was pulled the sweater fell apart.

As a bystander, this felt a little like two storms-troopers having a shoot out: there were several times where either side could have been obliterated with the right argument at the right time, but there were opportunities not taken.

At the end, I think con did not establish the homeostasis principle as a valid moral framework, through his contentions, pro highlighted its insufficiency - and as this was the primary reason pro gave me to reject P1, the failure to demonstrate Homeostasis consequently affirms P1 as a result - and thus the debate contention.

Arguments to pro.

As a result, I can’t say con refuted the crux of pros opening arguments - but also I can’t say that pros use of OMF stands against homeostasis either.

The upshot of this, is basically that P1 passes or fails based on cons homeostasis argument. On this count, I believe con fails to demonstrate this in the face of pros arguments - and as such he fails to offer a valid rebuttal to pros main arguments on these points.

As a result - I have to consider P1 stands.

Now: onto ancillary points:

Free will: pro argues that atheism cannot account for free will. If I accept pros argument as true - there is no clear argument he provides as to why this necessitates objective morality proving God.

While this would be valid in a “does god exist” debate - in the current debate, it does not appear relevant to the contention. So I must reject it.

Conversely, while con refutes pro in a similar manner (IMO), I don’t feel this negates the content either. Unless one side or other clearly explains why god must exist if morality is objective - or not - I can’t use this argument to draw a conclusion. Okay

The NAP. Pro uses this to rebut con, con clearly points out that this is a straw man - and I agree and thus reject this as a rebuttal.

In terms of where to draw the line, with pros arguments on the effects of homeostasis as con presents them, does not make clear the lines drawn between species, and whether affecting the homeostasis of a single celled organism is immoral - I also side with pro here. Con does not provide any method I can see of using homeostasis assessing moral judgements between species or uses homeostasis to present this distinction and thus the point can’t be considered refuted.

Con does reference neural capacity - but as this is an additional contention to homeostasis - and as Con doesn’t show it is objective, or makes any attempt to explain how it could be applied - I can’t consider it a rebuttal to pros very specific point - and pro points out this insufficiency.

On the point of moral commands/OMF, I have to dismiss this point. While my interpretation of what pro said was that morality is a compulsion, that we follow - and that con did not provide an explanation of why such a compulsion exists without God - this isn’t explicitly what pro said and the phrasing he used. I don’t want to use my interpretation of what pro said unless it’s cut and dry.

Con somewhat undermines pros presentation of commands with a single sentence that if there were no universe, there’d be no babies and no one to torture them - this would have been a fascinating avenue - but one that con didn’t follow, and in my view is insufficient on its own to consider P1 refuted.

Finally, pro argued that we are commanded not to kill, the compulsion to follow moral behaviour makes them inherent commands, this element of morality that pro highlighted was mostly dismissed by con (though I will cover this later), and con did not seem to explain why homeostasis would necessarily lead to that same compulsion, only that it did.

These were the primary exchanged arguments (other than ancillary points that I will weight separately), and I wanted to conclude on them as a whole:

Pro summarizes that cons argument on the harm part of the argument was arbitrary. I agree. Cons attempts to show trivial harms are the reason massively immoral acts are immoral is almost self refuting in the context of the debate - I believe pro manages to highlight these weaknesses and insufficiencies of the framework as a result.

Pro summarized that cons argument on the long vs short term homeostasis was also a cop out. I also agree. If con had argued driving was immoral - which he could have - it would have been reasonable, but cons attempt to resolve short and long term seems arbitrary, con did not satisfactorily explain this, and I think pro highlights this sufficiently in his response.

Con sets up a fairly compelling framework that allows us to measure, analyze and determine the morality of actions. In his main rebuttal con provides an argument based on homeostasis against pros main points. Allowing a direct contrast example for me to weigh.

Pro points out two primary thrusts of objections: 1.) cons explanation has a series of potential moral paradoxes. 2.) cons argument would apply to single celled life which seems absurd.

Both of these points cast legitimate doubt on cons argument.

Con follows up with detailed explanations on both counts, that seem reasonable, however a major contention that pro raises is not answered by con: Namely, if it is possible to commit an obviously immoral act without harming homeostasis, cons argument is refuted. Con focuses instead on showing that a given act causes harm, no matter how small or trivial that harm may be.

Con also deflects the second point. Saying that we draw the line because of aspects of consciousness.

Furthering this, there was an exchange about long term and short term benefits and homeostasis. Relating to cars and driving. Pro argued that driving should be considered immoral based on the framework, whereas con disagrees citing long vs short term homeostasis.

Sources, conduct and grammar inseparable so marked as a tie.

Note: apologies if I have mixed up pro and con here - hopefully it’s clear.

Arguments:

Pro starts laying out his logical case for why objective morality (which is not contested by either side) supports God.

This majority of pros opening argument is largely uncontested by con - other than con offering his own explanation as refuting pros positions, and hinging all his points directly on that.

This means this whole debate turns on whether con shows that his explanation for moral facts is valid, and pro needs to show the reverse. If pro does it that, it appears all objections to pros position are removed and pro wins.

Con sets up his argument on homeostasis, effectively explaining an objective way of determining whether an action is moral or not.

-->
@Outplayz

Thanks for the vote, you sufficiently explained your argument points and how it related to the resolution. Nice work.

-->
@Ramshutu

Yes. We both agreed without human opinion and my case was objective morality exists sans god. Please be fair here, I know you put up good votes, please be fair.

-->
@Ramshutu

Confirmed

-->
@MagicAintReal
@David

Can I confirm something? You mentioned that you agreed in PMs that “Objective: moral facts are true independent of human opinion”, and in pros body “P2: Objective moral facts exist (not in dispute)”.

Could I ask whether con contended either of these two statements? I couldn’t see that these were contested anywhere, just wanted to check before I start reviewing.

-->
@Logical-Master

Can't say I agree, but excellent RFD

-->
@Logical-Master

Thanks for the RFD!

-->
@3RU7AL

For me:
1. any moral action is reducible to the homeostasis of those towards whom we are acting.
2. god is not needed for homeostasis to be an objective standard for morality.
3. the universe wasn't created, therefore the homeostatic principle doesn't need god to exist to be objectively moral.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@David

I've tried your suggestion too many times before and had my efforts struck from the record for not meeting these criteria.

Only PRO and CON [[themselves]] can determine which particular excerpts can be properly considered their respective "Main Arguments".

-->
@3RU7AL

You have to determine, from your reading of the debate, what the main arguments relevant to the resolution are, then justify awarding points for each.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@David

Per https://www.debateart.com/rules

"This survey must be comprehensive, which is to say that it must survey all or most of the main arguments in the debate..."

So, for the record, can you both please point out to me what you consider to be your Main Arguments from this particular debate.

"The comprehensiveness requirement simply requires you analyze the "main" arguments, of which there are usually 2 to 5 in a debate."

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/864?page=4&post_number=79

PRO fails to give even a single example of some moral command (OMF) that might (necessarily) supposedly come from a god.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@David

It was a good debate. I'm still mulling over who I think did better. I expected it to be an easy ride for Pro, but Con made good points and held his own on rebuts. Wish more debates were like this.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Me to! In fact this is probably on of my favorite debates of all time.

I'm loving this debate.

I think I wrote the word "homeostasis" 17 times in one round.
My fellow teachers would be proud.