One can have morals without God

Thank you for this exciting challenge. First, I think we should go through a few things. ============ Definitions Morality - conforming to the standard of right conduct (morals) Moral relativism - right or wrong are not absolutes, but can be determined by each individual [1] ============ Rules If you disagree with these rules, or want new ones, I would advise in letting me know in the comments section so we can sort it out. I. When referring to the opponent's (my) beliefs, one must use the more recently coined word, ‘worldview,' instead of ‘religion.' This is due to the misuse of the word in previous debates. Worldview – the manner in which a person perceives his universe II. The next rule is probably obvious, but again, in the last debate I encountered this issue. An attacker may only attack the other's position by using their worldview. For example, I believe evolution is scientifically and logically impossible; therefore you cannot use evolution to attack my views. However, you can clearly defend yourself with evolution. ============= I do not exactly know everything about my opponent's beliefs as I am no expert in Daoism. I'm not sure how I should make my arguments because I will be assuming your beliefs. In order to solve this problem, I think we should answer the following "worldview questions." Be as brief unless it really applies to the debate. 1) Is there a God, and if so, what is He like? 2) What is the nature of the universe? 3) What is the nature of man? 4) What is the basis of ethics and morality? 5) What is the cause of evil and suffering? 6) What happens to man at death? 7) Do life and history have any real meaning? ============= Worldview of Con: 1) God exists. God is an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, transcendent being. God is just; God is love itself; God can do no evil; God cannot create anything infinite. 2) Created by God. 3) Man has free will (mostly). Man is inherently sinful because of "The Fall." Man is given dominion over the earth. 4) God is the basis. In fact God is good itself. 5) Man is the cause of evil. Earth was cursed at "The Fall." 6) Man will be judged by God. (7) History is God's plan unwinding itself. Meaning of life is to glorify God. ============= Now I will begin my argument while assuming your beliefs. I. Let us begin with, God does not exist. This says many things about the universe. It means that the universe was caused by nothing (let me know if you disagree). If you believe in the Bing Bang Theory, then our galaxy, our solar system, our earth, and life itself are all based on chance. Chance means nothing. If you say that the earth came to its present location by chance, you are basically saying it is there by nothing since nothing caused it to be there. Thus, human existence is based on chance i.e. nothing. Now, I'm not sure where you think morality resides, but if morality is based in the human physical mind, then we could conclude morality is based on chance i.e. nothing. In this perspective, there is no basis for morals in the universe. Perhaps they always existed? I'm not sure. II. Here is an argument on moral relativism: If morality is relative, a person can decide what is right for himself. If so, every case could be moral if one conforms to the right conduct of his own ideas. This makes the standard of right and wrong relative to each individual. This means there is no single standard. This means that an idea can be true and not true at the same time, which breaks the rules of logic. Therefore morality cannot be relative. In this argument, morality must either be universal or non-existent (moral nihilism). III. Moral reformers dilemma: Sometimes morals are not relative to the individual, but to social groups. Let's use Martin Luther King as an example of why this doesn't make sense. He completely went against what society's ideas of right and wrong. Martin Luther King was thus, in the relativist's view, acting wrongly. But the moral state of society was arguably improved [3]. IV. It is impossible for a moral relativist to claim anything is wrong, including intolerance. If moral relativism is true, there are no immoral societies and there are no immoral laws [4]. [1] http://www.moral-relativism.com... [2] http://blogcritics.org... [3] http://personal.bellevuecollege.edu... [4] http://www.scottmsullivan.com...