Without divine authority, objective morality cannot exist.

The rules of chess exist independent of individual human opinion and they are objective. Would Pro have us believe there is a god of chess to somehow make the rules objective? Science provides an objective means to understand our shared reality and it operates on methodological naturalism (sans gods). Mathematics came from human minds, works without the need for gods,  and is the go-to example of philosophical objectivy. 

Why should morality be different from these other human creations? 

• Chess - Chess is a strategy game that was invented for a specific purpose. The ‘rules’ of chess are a social construct and exists only in the minds of humans because we made it up and decided to abide by them. It is only because you and other people decide these rules have meaning, that they’re worth following. They do not exist objectively. But the game its self encourages analytical moves based on limited patterns.
  
• Mathematics - Mathematics is a form of science that uses advanced formulas to support conclusions based on concrete data and follows a method of empiricism to obtain reliable results. 
  

1. What is an example of objective morals? Can Con prove these morals are objectively correct? 
   
2. Without anyone to guide us, how do we arrive at our own conclusion of objective morality without a metaphorical internal or external compass?
   

Withouta divine being, no such values exist and become a completely subjective thing.But with a supreme being, objective morality can exist independently of humanbelief.

Moralityis unlike either of these two [chess;mathematics] because it follows no suchstructure and is liable to change on a whim.

It[morality] is based only on your own personal feelings validating what youbelieve to be right or wrong, and whether this conforms with society’sexpectations.

If Goddoes not exist, what then is to make one person’s sense of right and wrongobjectively superior to another man’s sense of right and wrong?

“My opponent claims humanity invented morality. Agree. Healso claims it is a social construct. Agree. The he goes on to assert animalsare too primitive and barbaric to understand morality. I’m not sure I agree onthis one. We have many examples of animal behaving morally or in a moral-looking ways. Eg. Dolphins will attack sharks to protect other animalsincluding humans. Suffice to say, humans might be the only species to “traditionallydefine” objective moral values because, you know, dictionaries are kind of ourthing, but its probably not fair to say we are the only moral species.”

“Pro asks ‘if morality exists only in human minds what is thefoundation for objective moral values?’ The answer is in the question: humanminds. The fact that it is human minds, and not an individual mind, is what makes it objective: Everyone can follow along.”

“Just to be clear, Pro is arguing morality is a humanconstruct AND a divine power is needed to make it work. It is an odd claim. It would be more coherent if the divine lawgiver were also the origin of moral law. Is my opponent suggesting a deity didn’t think of morality but recognized its usefulness andco-opted it? This is not consistent with an omniscient being. Not to mention, the opinions of a single being defining moral values is very much not objective.”

“There might not be ‘morality’ engines to evaluate moral decisions like chess,but that doesn’t make morality subjective. This difference between my examples andmorality is inconsequential. There is no false equivalence. Objectivity does not require structure.”

“l. Theism provides a consistent framework forobjective moral values.

William LaneCraig is Christian, so I simply ask my opponent to provide the Bible’s consistentand unchanging position on slavery, rape, or genocide. For the record, thereisn’t one. The Old Testament codifiesslavery, allows rapists to marry their victim, and has god-commanded genocide.Christians mostly take a different view in modern times with slavery, rape, and genocide generally being considered immoral. This is notconsistency.”

“One view is only “superior” if both individuals buy into thesame standard. For instance, a Muslim and a Christian most likely aren’tgoing to agree on a superior moral view from a religious standpoint, but they mightagree from a humanistic context. Humanity understandsa common form of moral measurement thanks to our shared heritage as members ofa social species. Primitive populations would have shunned members that werea detriment to the group.  Most all of ourancestors (having presumably been deemed more valuable than harmful) would have typically chosen cooperation in a group rather than murder and mayhem.  

To answer the question of which right and wrong are superior, we need a standard two parties can agree on.  Is that going to be a ‘consistent’ theisticframework or something more fundamental like survival? My money is onthe latter.

Finally, Pro asks for an example of objective morals and proofthey are objectively correct.  I willremind Pro, the burden is on him in this debate. Can Pro meet the burden he attempts to lay on me? As for the second question, Pro is assuming his conclusion. The absence of an external authority figure doesn't disallow a "metaphorical internal or external compass".  Humanism is an example of a moral theory with an external standard that is not a being of any kind.”

Humans want to believe that a dolphin is attacking a shark to save them because people are naturally narcissistic and want to assume the best intentions, but there is no proof this is true. This is what we call a Confirmation Bias.     

• “Dolphins and sharks are natural predators.” 
  

• Dolphins impulsively attack sharks on sight, regardless of a person’s presence with no concern of the human’s well-being.”
  

• “Dolphins are known to provoke divers and swimmers, with people assuming they’re being saved from drowning without realizing they’re prey being toyed with.”
  

• “Male Dolphins are also rapists.”
  

“Pro asks ‘if morality exists only inhuman minds what is the foundation for objective moral values?’ The answer is in the question: human minds. The fact that it is human minds, and not an individual mind, is what makes it objective: Everyone can follow along.”

False. 

Human minds cannot be the foundation {paraphrased]?

P1.Morality varies. [paraphrased]

P2.Morality gets better over time. [paraphrased]

P3. “Con’s assertion makes no sense”. [paraphrased]

P3 “As the definitions in the description deal with right and wrong existing objectively, independently of a person’s opinion of what constitutes good and evil, then it is logically absurd to claim that humans determine objective morality just because it is a matter of numbers vs the individual.” 

For morality to have any objective value and meaning, it requires a divine power with sentience assigning it such. Otherwise, there is no significance. 

 “In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).” 

“l. Theism provides a consistent framework for objective moral values. 

[…] if there is no divine being to state that refusing to rescue a drowning person or leaving a puppy to die in a tragic house fire is morally wrong, then there is no incentive for people to treat it as such besides personal opinion.

This isn’t Objective Morality, which deals in morality existing independently of human opinion, this is Social Morality. (In which humans ultimately come to a mutual agreement on shared ethics and beliefs.) 

Now since Con refuses to provide any examples of objective morality and has not proven that they are objective, and hasn't answered how someone can arrive at their own conclusion of what constitutes objective morality without an intuition or empathy, I can only infer that Con is unable to give us this information or is uninterested. 

“In my narcissism (wink wink), I mentioned humans when pointing out dolphins save other animals from sharks.  The point stands even if humans aren’t mentioned!  Suffice to say, this isn’t confirmation bias or narcissism. 

I’d like to weigh in on the bullet points provided:    

“Dolphins and sharks are natural predators.”  

Humans area danger to most species. I fail to see the relevance of either of these facts to the debate.”

“My opponent would have us question seemingly altruistic dolphin actions, but uncritically accept nefarious motives where it suits his argument. You can’t have it both ways there, sir. “

“Unfortunately, male humans have been known to rape as well. I'm still interested to know what theistic framework my opponent is using to deem dolphin rape immoral. If one can’t be provided, then Sir.Lancelot has no legitimate objection to dolphin rape.”

“It’s not clear what Pro thinks is false. Does he think his question didn’t have the answer built in? ...or does he disagree objectivity allows everyone to follow without the need for personal opinions? He goes on to give a confused argument involving incest, cannibalism, and objective revulsion (whatever that is). Long story short, humanity arbitrarily deciding morality and revulsion (given that it is an emotion) aren’t objective nor part of my argument. This is a strawman. I’m more than willing to set this ablaze with Pro.”

 “1.       Using the definition of objective morality provided in the debate description (Right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion) my opposition has not provided an objective moral theory. Morality dependent on the opinion of a divine authority would fail to qualify as objective. Sir.Lancelot is advocating a form of subjective morality.

2.       Pro misrepresents my argument.  My position is not that a quantity of people makes something objective, but that a quality of objectivity is that it is less ambiguous - an interpreter isn't required. Opinions aren’t always clear and can’t always be followed by everyone, but an objective standard removes opinion from the equation and allows for many (or any) unbiased, honest individuals to arrive at more or less the same answer.”

“With relevance to the individual being quoted (William Lane Craig), I asked for a consistent and unchanging Biblical [Christian] position regarding slavery, rape o r genocide.  No such standard was provided.  For Pro to be victorious in this debate, he should be able to show his argument isn’t just hollow words.  What is the consistent theistic framework Christians use to condemn slavery in the modern world while the Bible condones it?”

“I find this statement alarming. So far as I know there are no objectively verifiable words from a divine being, much less words which mandate rescuing drowning people.  Does Pro believe there is no incentive to save a fellow human besides obedience?  Obedience is not the same thing as morality.”

“We’ve already agreed morality is a social construct.  However, so are definitions like “objective”.  This objection has no teeth.”

“Such blatant dishonesty is not normally seen so prominently in debates on morality.  These words were typed in response to a paragraph where Humanism was cited as an objective moral theory sans divine authority.  Pro doesn’t have to agree with my example, but he shouldn’t pretend it was never provided.”

The real question in this debate though is not whether morality requires Pro’s preferred deity, but whether a higher power is required for objectivity. 

Early on in this debate, my opponent embraced the words of, possibly, the modern world’s best and most well-known Christian debater: William Lane Craig.  Now, Sir.Lancelot is attempting to distance himself from the religion of Dr. Craig and most well-known forms of theism.

This is an assertion, not an argument.  If I weren’t averse to knowingly committing logical fallacies, I could simply state “Pro is wrong” and our fallacious assertions would cancel out. 

Pro recycles his baseless contention humans are not capable of coming up with objective standards.  This assertion was squashed by examples to the contrary in my round 1 opening argument: the rules of chess, the scientific method, and mathematics. I asked Pro why morality should be different from these human created examples of objectivity.  His response did not follow (‘structure disallows subjectivity’). Repetition isn’t going to make Pro’s assertion more reasonable

Since my opponent is advocating divine authority is a requirement for morality (aka ~ obedience) he should be able to point us to a list of objective rules.  Obedience is impossible without rules, or, at least, principles. Where can this be found? I imagine this is going to be very difficult for Pro while he refuses to commit to a specific divinity and/or theism.

Plus, there is a difference between obedience and morality. Obedience is about doing what one is told, morality is about doing the right thing. If mom tells son to murder dad, obedience is following directions while morality is not doing it. If soldiers are ordered to commit atrocities, following orders is obedience while not following orders is the moral thing to do. Morality and obedience are two separate things.  

Sir.Lancelot’s claims of meeting his BOP notwithstanding, there are some unanswered questions.  For instance, how does morality built on the opinions of a subject (divine or not) qualify as an ‘objective’ morality?  If Pro is advocating for subjective morality under the label of objective, how could his burden have possibly been met? Additionally, there is a question of whether Pro is even advocating for morality at all or just obedience. If meeting a burden on objective morality does not require objectivity and/or morality, then Pro has nailed it.

Pro is trying to shift the burden to me because he is failing to uphold the only burden there is in this debate. I’ve provided glimpses into my views in the interest of discussion. My opponent is trying to twist my good will into a failure on my part, but don’t be fooled. This debate is about Pro’s view and whether it can be substantiated.  The only question we need to ask ourselves when it is time to vote is, “Did Pro provide anything substantive to establish his position is correct?” I submit, “no”.