Instigator / Pro
David's avatar
David
1485
rating
92
debates
45.65%
won
Topic
#6330

Resolved: God is the best explanation for morality

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the contender.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Religion
Philosophy
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
1485
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Description

Thank you, Double_R, for accepting this debate!

Note this debate will be winner select

INTRO

In this debate I will be arguing for one major contention: God is the best explanation of morality. By that, I mean that the existence of objective moral facts is best explained by positing the existence of a supreme being. By "best explanation." I mean it is superior to competing theories in terms of its explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, less ad hocness, accord with already accepted beliefs, and comparative superiority. The argument goes like this [1}:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exist
.
=== Definitions ==
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Moral realism:
Objective: True regardless of human opinions.

-- STRUCTURE --
1. Opening
2. Rebuttals
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals/Close

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 resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is on Pro; Con's BOP lies in proving Pro wrong. Con may make original arguments if he wants to.
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)
11. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.

== SOURCES ==
1. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-moral-argument/moral-argument-part-1

Round 1
David's avatar
David
Pro
#1
Intro

I want to say thank you to Double_R for accepting this debate. In this debate I will need to defend two things: (1) Moral realism - that morality is objective; and (2) That moral realism necessitates a God. The basic structure goes like this [1]:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exist

Premise 2: Objective moral values exist

I’m actually going to begin my arguments by defending premise 2 before I defend premise 1. Premise 2 is where the bulk of this debate will probably be focused on. Why should we believe that moral facts are objective? Here are a few reasons:

(1) Moral progress 

Moral progress only makes sense in the framework of moral realism. Almost everyone can agree that slavery is wrong and that the abolition of slavery was an improvement on society. But why should we believe this is the case? If morality were merely subjective or based on culture, then who is to say that we actually made progress as a society? 

Consider the following statistics: In Yemen, under the oppressive forces of the Youthis, gay people are routinely imprisoned and sentenced to death [2], enslaves children [3], and restrict women’s freedom of movement [4].  Most people would rightly be repulsed by such behavior. But why should we be repulsed? If morality was merely subjective or based on culture, then who are we to say Yemen’s culture is worse than ours?

(2) The objective nature of morality allows for moral judgement 

Consider the above examples from Yemen. We are certainly repulsed at the notions of child slavery. But why? If morality is nothing more than one's mere opinion, then it makes no sense condemning or praising someone. Under moral anti-realism or subjectivism, stating “slavery is immoral” is like saying “wearing white after labor day is wrong.”  But we intuitively know that there are things that are objectively right and wrong, like child slavery. 

(3) Argument from Epistemic Realism

Consider the following dialogue:

David: What do you think of my argument for evolution?
Double_R: I think it's a sound argument -- your conclusion was well-argued, and I see no problems with it.
David: So does that mean you'll reject young earth creationism now and accept the scientific facts of evolution?
Double_R: No
David: Why not?
Double_R: Because I have no duty to embrace the truth. I reject reality and substitute it with my own. 

Such an exchange is rightfully absurd. If there are epistemic facts and duties, then why are there no moral facts and duties? In the context of this debate I am sure my opponent would have me be respectful of him, honestly engage with his arguments, and not commit logical fallacies. But why is that the case? We can summarize this as follows [5]:

P1. If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
P2: Epistemic facts do exist
C1: Moral facts do exist. 
P3: If moral facts do exist, then moral realism is true. 
C2: Moral realism is true

Consider the following principles and values which are foundational to the very possibility of rational discourse, all of which the moral anti-realists must deny:

1. It is good to believe the truth and avoid falsehood.
2. We ought to think rationally.
3. We ought to argue from an honest perspective.
4. We ought not misrepresent your opponent's arguments.
5. You must not commit logical fallacies. 

If relativism or nihilism about value entails such conclusions, then it can be rightly rejected as absurd. Given the ubiquity and centrality of rational discourse in everyday life, we have every reason to suppose that there are such things as objective moral facts.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist 

Now that we have established moral realism, why should we accept the first premise? If moral realism is true, that means there is an objective  source that can account for morality. This means that the source of morality must be transcend humanity, be morally perfect, be a rational entity, and be necessary. This being is what we call God. 

Objection: Euthyphro’s dilemma

There is a famous argument made by Euthyphro that attempts to undermine the divine origins of ethics. The argument states: “do the gods love good action because it is good, or is good action good because it is loved by the gods?” 

The problem is that this is a false dilemma. Morality is not good because God says it is good nor is it good because it is already good independent of God, but rather morality reflects the moral perfection of God’s nature.

Conclusion

Objective moral values and duties exist, as shown by progress, judgment, and epistemic realism. These require a personal, morally perfect God to ground ethics. The resolution is strongly affirmed. 

Sources
5. Michael Jones, "Moral Realism Defended." https://youtu.be/zjkgD4w9w1k?si=fgWg7NfYThtSr3PL&t=42 


Not published yet
Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet